The turmoil at the University of San Carlos de Guatemala has triggered a public dispute between President Bernardo Arévalo and Congressman Samuel Pérez, an executive-branch ally in Congress. The clash revolves around how far presidential authority can extend in addressing accusations tied to the selection of Walter Mazariegos as rector, along with the constitutional boundaries and the scope of university autonomy.
Pérez questioned the president’s decision to await judicial rulings before taking further action. Arévalo responded that the presidency cannot act beyond its authorized powers and argued that the legislator’s statements reveal an “information gap” regarding the executive branch’s authority.
The debate reveals two contrasting perspectives on how the government should address a controversy still awaiting judicial rulings, and although both sides contest the legitimacy of Mazariegos’s administration, they disagree on what kind of response the government ought to pursue.
Differences Regarding Presidential Powers
Samuel Pérez characterized Arévalo’s stance—restricting the Executive Branch’s actions to whatever the courts dictate—as “insufficient”. The congressman contended that the Presidency has refrained from exercising “public authority” to address the university crisis.
His criticism centers on the government’s broader failure to step in regarding Walter Mazariegos’ ongoing tenure, and Pérez argues that the president’s reaction falls short of the responsibilities he believes the executive branch should exercise in the face of the conflict.
Arévalo rejected this argument during *La Ronda*. The president indicated that there is a lack of understanding regarding the powers the Constitution grants the president and noted that his administration must respect the legal limits of its actions.
According to the president’s position, any intervention exceeding those powers could affect the autonomy of the USAC. For that reason, the executive branch has maintained its decision to await the rulings of the courts and to request that the relevant institutions investigate the complaints filed during the rector election process.
The difference between the two officials, therefore, lies in their interpretation of the scope of presidential action. Pérez calls for more active involvement, while Arévalo maintains that the conflict must be resolved through existing legal procedures.
Arévalo Rejects Allegations of Possible Agreements
The president also denied the existence of any hidden agreements related to the election process for university officials. Arévalo stated that these allegations are unfounded and attributed them to a lack of information or to the “bad faith” of those who made them.
The president assured that, from the Office of the President, he urged judicial authorities to investigate allegations of possible irregularities and legal violations that occurred during the university’s election process. At the same time, he reiterated that his involvement must remain within the constitutional framework.
This stance entrusts the settlement of the dispute to the institutions tasked with handling legal cases, while for the Executive Branch, honoring these procedures reflects its duty to refrain from directly influencing the university’s internal choices.
Pérez’s position introduces a separate demand, and while the congressman has likewise turned to judicial channels, he maintains that the president’s leadership could exert a broader influence in dealing with the situation at USAC.
Perspectiva portrays this exchange as the earliest openly acknowledged divergence between the executive branch and one of its key legislative partners over the university crisis, emphasizing that their split centers not on evaluating Mazariegos’s administration but on which instruments should be employed to deal with it.
Pérez Initiates Legal Proceedings Against Mazariegos
While questioning the president’s actions, Samuel Pérez is pursuing a legal agenda against Walter Mazariegos. Among the actions mentioned are criminal complaints alleging the possible offense of abuse of authority.
The congressman thus combines his political criticism with the use of legal proceedings. His position is that awaiting judicial rulings should not prevent the executive branch from exercising other forms of leadership within its authority.
Arévalo, for his part, stresses that any step taken should steer clear of infringing on university autonomy or triggering challenges for overstepping presidential powers. His reply underscores a careful institutional approach grounded in the clear division of responsibilities among the executive branch, university leadership, and the judiciary.
The controversy creates tension in the relationship between the Presidency and one of its allies in Congress. It also reflects a difference of opinion on how state power should be used in the face of an institutional crisis: through more active political intervention, as Pérez proposes, or by respecting judicial processes and constitutional limits, as Arévalo argues.
The situation at USAC remains tied to pending investigations and rulings. Until those decisions are made, the debate between the two parties will continue to focus on the scope of presidential authority, university autonomy, and the institutional channels available to address complaints related to the rector’s election.
