Supreme Court begins historic days of allegations of judges who risk being removed for misuse of medical licenses
The Supreme Court of Chile is embarking on historic proceedings to address allegations of misconduct against 57 judges who allegedly misused medical licenses by traveling abroad. These judges face potential removal from their positions based on violations of ethical standards. The court’s plenary session, composed of 18 justices including President Gloria Ana Chevesich and other senior judges, will hear arguments from the judges and determine their fate through a vote requiring at least 11 affirmative votes. Judges have the right to request delays in their cases, with over 14 such requests already recorded. Legal representatives, including attorneys Gabriel Osorio and Carlos Quezada, will defend the accused judges, aiming to demonstrate that their actions do not warrant removal.
The Supreme Court of Chile has begun historic proceedings to hear arguments from 57 judges facing potential removal due to alleged misuse of medical licenses. The process marks a pivotal moment in the country’s judicial history, as the court will exercise its corrective oversight authority over all courts and tribunals to determine the fate of these magistrates. The judges are under scrutiny for serious breaches of integrity following reports of international travel while on medical leave. The hearing commenced on Wednesday morning at 10:00 AM with the full bench of the Supreme Court, composed of 18 justices. Presiding Justice Gloria Ana Chevesich was joined by several other justices including Soledad Melo, María Cristina Gajardo, Andrea Muñoz, Jessica González, Eliana Quezada, and Carolina Catepillán. Additional members included Arturo Prado, Mauricio Silva, Manuel Valderrama, Leopoldo Llanos, Jorge Zepeda, Jean Pierre Matus, Omar Astudillo, Gonzalo Ruz, Ricardo Blanco, Roberto Contreras, and Hernán Crisosto. These justices will evaluate each case based on constitutional and ministerial responsibilities outlined in Article 80 of the Constitution. The process involves listening to arguments from all 57 judges, after which the court will convene a full session to deliberate. It is expected that the outcome, whether any of them will be removed from the judiciary, will be known next week. At least 11 votes in favor are required for removal. Each judge has the right to request a postponement of their case once, and more than 14 such requests have already been recorded. Officials estimate that up to 12 cases could be reviewed daily. Legal representatives of the judges, many of whom have spent decades in the judiciary, will present their arguments to persuade the court that their actions did not constitute severe misconduct warranting removal. Each case will be examined individually, allowing the court to assess specific circumstances before making decisions through majority vote. Among the legal teams representing the judges, Gabriel Osorio, an expert in Public Law and former commission member, will begin his arguments with the first five cases. Another notable representative is Carlos Quezada, whose clients include judges who sought review from the Constitutional Court (TC). Quezada aims to prevent the removal of judges Daniel Urrutia, María Verónica Arancibia, Jorge Saavedra, Lía Chepe, María José Salas, and Kathyuzka Drpic. Saavedra appears to be the only one currently protected from immediate review, having successfully obtained approval from the TC to delay his case. Other attorneys set to appear before the Supreme Court include constitutionalist Tomás Jordán, representing Judge Paola Rivas, and Juan Carlos Manríquez, who supports Judge José Delgado. Penal lawyer José Pedro Silva from BACS Abogados represents another judge, alongside William García, a specialist in Administrative Law, who also represents a magistrate. Ciro Colombara and Aldo Díaz, both selected by the National Association of Judges, will represent six judges collectively. Meanwhile, the New York Bar Association has expressed concerns regarding the proposed removal of 56 judges in Chile for traveling abroad during their medical leaves. This international reaction adds pressure on the Chilean judiciary to ensure transparency and fairness in its proceedings. In a related development, the Constitutional Court has denied the appeal filed by Judge Urrutia, meaning the Supreme Court must proceed with reviewing his potential removal. This decision underscores the gravity of the situation and highlights the complex legal landscape surrounding these proceedings. As the hearings continue, the focus remains on how the Supreme Court will balance accountability with due process, ensuring that each case receives thorough examination before any final decisions are made.
4 reports
La TerceraIndependent🔒CenterFactual 75Objective 659/2/2026
The Supreme Court of Chile is embarking on historic proceedings to address allegations of misconduct against 57 judges who allegedly misused medical licenses by traveling abroad. These judges face potential removal from their positions based on violations of ethical standards. The court’s plenary session, composed of 18 justices including President Gloria Ana Chevesich and other senior judges, will hear arguments from the judges and determine their fate through a vote requiring at least 11 affirmative votes. Judges have the right to request delays in their cases, with over 14 such requests already recorded. Legal representatives, including attorneys Gabriel Osorio and Carlos Quezada, will defend the accused judges, aiming to demonstrate that their actions do not warrant removal.
Bias read (Center): The article presents a balanced account of the legal process involving the judiciary, focusing on procedural aspects rather than taking a clear ideological stance. It reports on the formal structure of the hearings, the rights of the judges, and the legal arguments being made, without overtly favori
Why factuality (75): The article reports on the Supreme Court initiating disciplinary proceedings against 57 judges accused of misuse of medical licenses. It provides details about the process, including the number of judges involved, the legal basis (Article 80 of the Constitution), and the procedural steps. While ther
Why objectivity (65): The tone is somewhat dramatic, using phrases like 'momento histórico y sin precedentes' and 'abrir los fuegos', which may suggest a more sensationalized approach. The article presents the court’s actions as significant but does not provide opposing viewpoints or contextualize the controversy beyond
The Supreme Court of Chile has initiated a disciplinary process known as a 'disciplinary marathon' that could result in the departure of up to 56 judges due to issues related to license cases. This process involves reviewing the conduct of these judges, potentially leading to their removal from office. The situation highlights concerns over judicial accountability and integrity within the Chilean legal system.
Bias read (Center): The article reports on a formal disciplinary process involving the judiciary, which is inherently a political issue in Chile. However, the report appears to present the facts neutrally without evident bias toward any particular side. It does not use loaded language or selectively emphasize certain观点
Why factuality (70): The article describes the Supreme Court starting a 'disciplinary marathon' that could result in the removal of 56 judges over the issue of medical license misuse. It matches the general consensus on the number of judges and the nature of the disciplinary process, though it omits some procedural deta
Why objectivity (65): The use of the term 'maratón disciplinaria' suggests a strong emphasis on the scale and intensity of the process, potentially influencing reader perception. While the tone remains formal, it leans toward highlighting the gravity of the situation without offering counterpoints or alternative interpre
The Chilean Supreme Court has rejected a procedural appeal filed by Judge Urrutia, meaning the court will not review his removal. The decision indicates that the process for removing judges is proceeding without further legal challenges being considered at this stage.
Bias read (Center): The article reports on a judicial process involving the removal of a judge, which is a politically sensitive issue. However, the tone remains neutral, focusing on the procedural outcome rather than taking a clear ideological stance. There is no evident slant toward any particular political faction.
Why factuality (65): The article discusses the Constitutional Court rejecting a judicial appeal related to Judge Urrutia and the Supreme Court needing to review his removal. It references specific legal procedures but lacks broader context about the overall disciplinary process. The focus on one case may limit the scope
Why objectivity (65): The article is framed around a single case and does not attempt to present multiple perspectives. It focuses on the legal outcome without indicating any potential bias or alternative viewpoints, maintaining a neutral tone but lacking depth.
The New York Bar Association has raised concerns over the removal of 56 judges in Chile due to their travel with a license. This action has sparked debate regarding judicial independence and the criteria used for such dismissals. The association questions whether these removals were justified and if they could undermine the integrity of the judiciary. The situation highlights potential tensions between legal standards and administrative decisions within the Chilean justice system.
Bias read (Center): The article presents the stance of the New York Bar Association questioning the removal of judges without explicitly favoring either side. It does not include biased language or one-sided sourcing, maintaining a balanced perspective on the issue.
Why factuality (60): This article mentions the New York Bar questioning the removal of 56 judges in Chile for traveling abroad on medical leave. However, it lacks detailed context or explanation of the bar’s concerns, making it less informative. The number of judges (56 vs. 57 in other sources) also shows inconsistency,
Why objectivity (70): The article is brief and appears to present the New York Bar’s stance without elaborating on the arguments or providing balance. It is more of a headline-style report rather than a full analysis, which limits its objectivity.
How each side covered it
The same event, grouped by the political lean of the outlets covering it.
progressive
center
conservative
★
How each side covered it
Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.
CL
