Workers caught between two worlds, fees eating into what they receive
En Perú, donde millones de trabajadores y jubilados navegan entre un sistema privado de pensiones y uno estatal sin que ninguno les garantice una vejez digna, la congresista María Acuña ha presentado una moción para crear una comisión especial que, en 120 días, intente lo que ya fracasó una vez: diseñar una reforma estructural que integre ambos mundos. Es un gesto que reconoce, implícitamente, que el tiempo y la paciencia de los peruanos con un sistema roto tienen límites.
- Millones de jubilados peruanos reciben pensiones insuficientes mientras las comisiones de las AFP siguen creciendo, convirtiendo el ahorro de toda una vida en una promesa incumplida.
- El sistema dual —AFP privadas y ONP estatal— lleva décadas operando en paralelo sin coherencia, generando inequidades profundas según el sector laboral al que pertenezca cada trabajador.
- Un intento previo de reforma integral, liderado por Carmen Omonte en 2021 con respaldo multipartidario, se hundió sin consenso, dejando intactas las mismas fallas estructurales.
- La nueva comisión propuesta por Acuña busca reunir a todos los bloques parlamentarios, dos ministerios, el regulador financiero, las AFP, la ONP y la Defensoría del Pueblo en una misma mesa de negociación.
- El reloj de 120 días ya corre en el papel, pero la moción aún espera el voto del Congreso para convertirse en realidad, y con ella, la posibilidad de que esta vez el diálogo llegue más lejos.
La congresista María Acuña, de Alianza para el Progreso, presentó esta semana una moción en el Parlamento peruano para crear una comisión especial con un mandato claro: revisar el sistema de pensiones del país y proponer una reforma integral en un plazo de 120 días. La iniciativa busca tender un puente entre las Administradoras de Fondos de Pensiones privadas —las AFP— y el sistema público, la ONP, dos estructuras que han coexistido durante décadas sirviendo a distintos segmentos de la población con resultados muy desiguales.
La composición de la comisión refleja una apuesta por el consenso amplio. Acuña propone incluir un representante de cada bancada parlamentaria, funcionarios de los ministerios de Economía y Trabajo, un delegado de la Superintendencia de Banca y Seguros, representantes de las AFP y de la propia ONP, y un defensor del pueblo. La arquitectura del grupo sugiere que sus promotores entienden que reformar las pensiones implica tocar intereses en todos los rincones del Estado y del sector financiero.
No es la primera vez que el Congreso intenta este camino. En 2021, la congresista Carmen Omonte impulsó la creación de un Sistema Previsional Integrado Universal que habría unificado las AFP, la ONP y otros regímenes bajo un solo marco. Pese al respaldo multipartidario, la propuesta nunca alcanzó el consenso necesario y quedó archivada, dejando sin resolver las quejas de fondo.
Esas quejas siguen vigentes: pensiones mensuales que no alcanzan para cubrir necesidades básicas y comisiones administrativas que erosionan los ahorros acumulados durante años de trabajo. La moción de Acuña intenta retomar una conversación que se interrumpió, aunque su éxito dependerá de si el Congreso puede sostener el foco durante cuatro meses y de si los intereses en pugna —la industria privada, el Estado, los trabajadores y los partidos— logran acordar qué significa realmente reformar.
María Acuña, a congresswoman from the Alliance for Progress party, filed a motion in Peru's legislature this week to establish a special commission tasked with redesigning the country's fractured pension system. The effort aims to bridge two separate worlds: the private pension administrators, known as AFP, and the state-run system, the ONP, which have operated in parallel for decades, serving different segments of the working population with vastly different outcomes.
The motion proposes that this commission conduct a comprehensive review and develop an integrated reform proposal for Peru's pension architecture. The language echoes an earlier multiparty effort, suggesting that Acuña and her allies are building on work already begun by other legislators who recognized the system's structural problems. The commission would have four months—120 days exactly—to complete its analysis and present findings to the full Congress.
The composition of the commission reflects an attempt at broad consensus-building. Acuña's proposal calls for one representative from each parliamentary caucus, ensuring no single political bloc dominates the conversation. Beyond legislators, the commission would include officials from the Economy Ministry and the Labor Ministry, a representative from the banking and insurance regulator, delegates from both the AFP industry association and the ONP itself, and an ombudsman from the Defender of the People's office. This structure suggests an acknowledgment that pension reform touches every corner of the state apparatus and the financial sector.
This is not Peru's first attempt at such overhaul. In 2021, congresswoman Carmen Omonte led a legislative push to create what she called a Universal Integrated Pension System—a unified structure that would have consolidated the AFP, the ONP, and other pension programs under one framework. That proposal, despite multiparty backing, never gained enough congressional support to advance. It stalled, leaving the dual system intact and the underlying grievances unresolved.
Those grievances are substantial. Since Peru created its private pension system and began allowing workers to opt into private accounts rather than the state system, complaints have mounted about the inadequacy of actual pension payments. Workers and retirees have pointed to rising commissions charged by private administrators—fees that grow as account balances grow—as a particular source of frustration. The system was designed to give workers choice and potentially higher returns, but in practice, many find themselves receiving smaller monthly payments than they expected, eroded by administrative costs that seem to multiply over time.
Acuña's motion attempts to restart a conversation that stalled once before. Whether this commission will succeed where Omonte's effort failed depends partly on whether Congress can maintain focus for four months and partly on whether the competing interests—the private pension industry, the state system, workers' advocates, and political parties with different ideological commitments—can find common ground on what "reform" actually means. The motion is now in the hands of Congress, waiting for a vote on whether to proceed.
Citas Notables
The commission will review and propose an integrated reform formula for Peru's pension system, building on earlier multiparty evaluation efforts— María Acuña's motion
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why does Peru need yet another commission on pensions? Didn't they try this in 2021?
They did, and it failed. But the problems didn't go away—if anything, they've gotten worse for people collecting pensions. This motion is essentially a second attempt, with a different structure and hopefully better timing.
What's actually broken about the system that needs fixing?
You have two completely separate pension worlds. Private administrators charge commissions that eat into what workers eventually receive. The state system has its own problems. Workers are caught between them, and many feel cheated by fees they didn't fully understand when they signed up.
Why include so many different groups in the commission? Doesn't that just slow things down?
It's the only way to get buy-in. If you exclude the private pension industry, they'll fight the recommendations. If you exclude workers' advocates, the public won't trust it. The broad membership is messy, but it's the price of legitimacy.
Four months seems short for redesigning an entire pension system.
It is. But it's also a forcing mechanism. A longer timeline just gives opponents time to organize. The commission has to move fast enough to maintain momentum but slow enough to actually listen to stakeholders.
What happens if this commission also fails to reach consensus?
Then Peru's pension problem stays unresolved, and millions of retirees keep receiving inadequate payments. The political will to try again might evaporate for years.