The commission chose to override those objections and send it forward anyway.
En medio de una de las crisis económicas más severas que ha enfrentado el Perú moderno, el Congreso avanza hacia permitir que millones de trabajadores accedan a sus propios ahorros de jubilación como medida de alivio ante la pandemia. La Comisión de Economía aprobó por unanimidad, en sesión extraordinaria, un proyecto que permitiría retiros de hasta 17,600 soles del sistema AFP, aceptando algunas observaciones del Ejecutivo pero rechazando otras. Es el eterno dilema entre la protección del futuro y la urgencia del presente, resuelto esta vez —al menos provisionalmente— a favor de quienes necesitan respirar hoy.
- Catorce legisladores votaron sin disidencia para impulsar el retiro de fondos de pensiones, desafiando parcialmente las objeciones del Poder Ejecutivo en plena semana de receso.
- La tensión entre el gobierno y el Congreso no desapareció: el Ejecutivo quería restricciones más estrictas sobre quiénes pueden retirar y cuánto, y esa disputa aún no está completamente resuelta.
- Como concesión, la comisión eliminó la posibilidad de retiro del 100% para mayores de 40 años sin aportes en cinco años, y bloqueó el acceso de terceros a los fondos sin autorización del titular.
- Miles de afiliados al sistema AFP siguen en espera mientras el proyecto avanza hacia el pleno del Congreso, donde deberá debatirse y votarse formalmente antes de convertirse en ley.
El jueves por la noche, la Comisión de Economía del Congreso peruano dio un paso decisivo para aliviar la presión económica que la pandemia ha impuesto sobre millones de trabajadores. En sesión extraordinaria, los catorce miembros del comité aprobaron por unanimidad un proyecto de ley que permitiría a los afiliados al sistema privado de pensiones retirar hasta 17,600 soles de sus cuentas individuales. La medida había sido observada previamente por el Ejecutivo, pero la comisión optó por insistir y enviarla al pleno de todas formas.
El camino hasta ese voto no fue sencillo. Los legisladores negociaron con las objeciones del gobierno y cedieron en puntos concretos: eliminaron una disposición que habría permitido a mayores de cuarenta años sin aportes en cinco años retirar el cien por ciento de sus fondos acumulados, y suprimieron un artículo que autorizaba a terceros —como beneficiarios de pensiones alimentarias— a acceder a parte del retiro sin consentimiento expreso del titular de la cuenta.
Sin embargo, la comisión no aceptó todas las exigencias del Ejecutivo. El gobierno había pedido limitar la elegibilidad solo a quienes no hubieran aportado en los tres meses previos al 30 de abril, y también quería eliminar el artículo que permitía a beneficiarios reclamar el treinta por ciento de lo retirado por el aportante principal. En esos puntos, el Congreso mantuvo su posición.
El proyecto pasa ahora al pleno para su debate y votación formal. La sesión aún no tiene fecha, pero cuando ocurra, los legisladores deberán determinar si los ajustes realizados son suficientes o si se requieren más cambios. Mientras tanto, miles de trabajadores aguardan saber si podrán acceder a sus propios ahorros en uno de los momentos más difíciles de la economía peruana reciente.
Peru's Economic Commission took a decisive step Thursday night to ease pandemic hardship for millions of workers. The committee voted unanimously to push forward a bill allowing people enrolled in the country's private pension system to withdraw up to 17,600 soles—roughly four times the monthly tax unit—from their retirement accounts. The measure had already been rejected once by the executive branch, but the commission chose to override those objections and send it forward anyway.
The vote came during an extraordinary session held in the middle of the legislative recess week. All fourteen members of the commission backed the proposal, which was designed as a lifeline for pension contributors struggling under the weight of the COVID-19 crisis. The money would come directly from individual retirement accounts managed by the AFP, Peru's private pension system, and the withdrawal would be treated as an exceptional measure tied specifically to pandemic-related economic distress.
But the path to this vote involved real negotiation. The executive branch had raised specific concerns about the original bill, and the commission did not simply ignore them. Lawmakers agreed to strip out a provision that would have allowed people over forty who hadn't contributed to their pension in five years to withdraw one hundred percent of their accumulated funds. They also removed language that would have permitted third parties—such as relatives with legal claims for child support—to access a portion of someone else's pension withdrawal without explicit authorization from the account holder. These were meaningful concessions to the government's position.
The executive had pushed for even stricter limits. Officials wanted the withdrawal eligibility narrowed to only those workers who had failed to make contributions in the three months leading up to April 30th. They also sought to eliminate an article that would have allowed beneficiaries of pension contributors—typically people receiving court-ordered support payments—to claim thirty percent of what the primary account holder withdrew. The commission accepted some of these concerns but not all, creating a middle ground between the original bill and what the government wanted.
Now the measure moves to the full Congress for debate and a formal vote on whether to approve it by insistence—the legislative mechanism for overriding executive objections. The plenary session has not yet been scheduled, but when it happens, lawmakers will need to decide whether the compromises the Economic Commission made are sufficient, or whether further changes are needed. The executive branch and the legislature remain in conversation about the final shape of the law, even as thousands of workers wait to learn whether they will be able to access their own money during one of the country's most difficult economic periods.
Notable Quotes
The measure aims to provide economic support to pension fund affiliates affected by COVID-19 pandemic hardship— Economic Commission rationale
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why did the commission need to override the executive at all? Couldn't they have just accepted the government's version?
Because the government's version was much more restrictive. The executive wanted to limit withdrawals to people who hadn't contributed in just three months, not five years. The commission thought that was too narrow—it would have excluded too many people who genuinely needed help.
So the commission split the difference?
Partly. They accepted some executive concerns—they did remove the provision about people over forty with no recent contributions, and they blocked third-party access to the funds. But they kept the core measure intact: the 17,600-sole withdrawal for active contributors.
Who actually benefits from this? Is it everyone in the private pension system?
Essentially, yes—anyone enrolled in the AFP who has been making contributions. The idea is that these are people's own retirement savings. During a pandemic, the government decided they should be able to access some of it immediately rather than wait until retirement.
And the executive opposed that?
The executive had concerns about the scope and the mechanics. They worried about people withdrawing too much, about third parties gaming the system, about the long-term impact on retirement security. Those aren't unreasonable concerns, which is why the commission negotiated.
So this isn't over?
Not quite. The full Congress still has to vote. The commission approved it, but the plenary debate could bring new objections or amendments. The executive and legislature are still talking.