Accusing Grau does not convince economists or lawyers: in addition to criticism, several excused themselves from exposing

The recent constitutional accusation against former Finance Minister Nicolás Grau has sparked significant debate among legal experts and economists in Chile. Despite having political backing within the Chamber of Deputies, the case faces challenges in gaining academic support. The commission reviewing the accusation, led by Deputy Marcela Hernando, encountered difficulties in finding scholars willing to endorse the legal text. In fact, several invited experts have declined to participate, leading to the cancellation of a session last Friday due to the lack of speakers.

The last session took place on Thursday, but even then, some supporting deputies did not attend, a point highlighted by the opposition to emphasize their perceived disinterest in this initiative driven by libertarian and republican factions. Among the few academics who did speak, Professor Jorge Berríos noted that while there was a "systematic" nature to the fiscal estimation errors validated by Grau, he remained uncertain about whether these errors constituted a sustainable basis for the accusation. He suggested that determining the acceptability of such errors would require being inside the Ministry of Finance.

Another key witness presented by the accusers, José Pablo Gómez, director of Budgets, also offered inconclusive remarks, stating that there is an ongoing investigation into the origins of public debt and national treasury errors. However, he admitted uncertainty regarding the causes or responsible parties behind these issues.

This week, the accusers hope to secure some legal endorsements and have invited lawyers Juan José Romero and Pablo Lizama to speak. Yet, their opinions on this matter remain undisclosed. On Monday, former Finance Ministers Andrés Velasco and Manuel Marfán will also contribute their critical perspectives, alongside other former officials such as Mario Marcel, who attended two consecutive sessions, and Ignacio Briones, who declined the invitation.

To date, fourteen individuals have declined participation, with some sending multiple emails citing scheduling conflicts. Two experts have not responded at all, while six have spoken and four more are pending. Following the Monday presentations, the review committee will vote on the accusation, which will serve as a recommendation for the final vote in the Chamber's Hall scheduled for Tuesday.

In contrast to the accusers' situation, Grau’s defense team, led by constitutional lawyer Patricio Zapata, has managed to attract some allies among the few experts who accepted the commission's invitation. Constitutional lawyers Jorge Correa and Marisol Peña delivered particularly impactful critiques of the accusation, challenging the claims made by libertarian and republican groups. Their arguments suggest that the legal foundation of the accusation is questionable, undermining the political momentum behind it.

Correa emphasized the complexity of attributing legal violations solely to the minister, arguing that the accusation fails entirely in assigning such infractions to him. Similarly, Marisol Peña's comments resonated deeply with right-wing members, as she had previously supported similar initiatives. Her reservations about the text—previously outlined in an interview—led some deputies from the Republican Party to announce their rejection of the presentation.

Peña pointed out that there is no constitutional principle mandating the organs responsible for drafting financial estimates to adhere strictly to certain standards, further complicating the legal justification for the accusation. As the review process continues, the outcome remains uncertain, with both sides presenting compelling arguments that reflect broader ideological divides within Chilean politics.