Manouchehri and Cicardini Challenge Regression in Review Commission: «The Accusation Against Simpertigue is Based on Solid Grounds»

Original article: Manouchehri y Cicardini cuestionan retroceso en comisión revisora: “La acusación contra Simpertigue tiene fundamentos sólidos”

The handling of the constitutional accusation against Diego Simpertigue took a new political turn after its main proponents, representatives Daniel Manouchehri and Daniella Cicardini, issued a statement directly criticizing the actions of the review commission in the Chamber of Deputies.

Both lawmakers reacted after the decision to overturn the vote from Wednesday, December 10, where the commission had unanimously resolved, with 4 votes in favor, to proceed with the constitutional accusation. They reported that in an «unprecedented situation,» the procedure was reversed under the pretext of presenting «new evidence,» which led the head of the chamber to suspend Thursday’s session and reschedule it for Monday.

The statement carries a critical tone, suggesting the process is being obstructed with excuses that do not alter the core of the accusation.

«The Evidence Submitted is Not Related to the Merit of the Case»

In the first point of the statement, Manouchehri and Cicardini emphasize that the so-called new evidence submitted by the defense of the minister does not alter the basis of the accusation, which centers on the judge’s lack of impartiality in ruling on cases involving individuals from his close circle.

They assert: «The evidence submitted does not pertain to the substance of the constitutional accusation. This accusation hinges on the lack of impartiality that the judge should have maintained when deciding cases linked to people within his close network.»

The representatives stress that the closeness between Simpertigue and lawyers Mario Vargas and Eduardo Lagos, with whom he shared trips and cruises, is incompatible with the judicial role.

They further highlight: «A judge who rules in favor of a company and then shares a cruise with members of that very network reveals a closeness that is incompatible with judicial duties.»

They also recalled that Vargas and Lagos are currently in prison, being investigated for allegedly paying former minister Vivanco for a favorable ruling in the same case that underpins this accusation.

The Money Refund: A Discussed Point That Would Not Change the Substance

The second point of the statement tackles another aspect: the defense’s claim that a ticket was initially paid for by Eduardo Lagos but was later refunded by Simpertigue. According to the defense, there are receipts that would be sent to the commission.

The lawmakers state: «Even if this were true, which could hold criminal relevance, it does not affect the basis of the accusation whatsoever.»

They emphasize that the criminal discussion is a parallel avenue—regarding which they have already filed a complaint with the Prosecutor’s Office—and that the constitutional accusation focuses on the close and sustained relationship between the judge and lawyers being investigated for alleged corruption in the Judiciary.

Evidence That Does Not Support the Claims Made

In their third point, the lawmakers add a crucial clarification about the documents sent by Simpertigue: «We have learned that the evidence provided by Mr. Simpertigue also does not verify the refund of the amount paid for the ticket on the cruise.»

This assertion reinforces the notion that, aside from not altering the substance of the accusation, the documents would fail to demonstrate what the defense sought to establish before the review commission.

A Case Hitting the Core of the Judiciary

The statement concludes with a broader political message, framing Simpertigue’s situation within what they describe as a deep crisis generated by the corruption network exposed in the Hermosilla case and the «Belarusian Doll».

According to Manouchehri and Cicardini: «The constitutional accusation has solid grounds. The corruption network revealed by the Hermosilla case and the so-called ‘Belarusian Doll’ has caused unprecedented institutional damage.»

They also issue a direct warning: «Those who seek to justify or cover up this behavior will use any excuse to intervene.»

The text ends with a call for responsibility from Congress at this moment: «We are convinced that Chile deserves a clean and impartial judiciary, and we hope Congress rises to the occasion of this historic moment.»

Statement regarding the events surrounding the Constitutional Accusation against Judge Diego Simpertigue.

We are convinced that Chile deserves a clean and impartial judiciary, and we hope Congress rises to the occasion of this historic moment. pic.twitter.com/g2Qx1c4v3H

— Daniel Manouchehri (@danimanouchehri) December 11, 2025

A New Scenario for the Accusation

This new politically charged article comes just as the review commission is set to resume its analysis of the accusation against Simpertigue, review omitted evidence, and vote again on whether the motion will progress to the full chamber.

Tension has heightened following the acknowledgment of previous errors in document submissions, which had already drawn criticism from parliamentarians and raised questions about the thoroughness of the process.

Now, with the public statement from the proponents of the accusation, the debate returns to a central axis: is the process being delayed for administrative reasons, or are there political forces attempting to influence the fate of the minister?