Immunity belongs to the person, not the building
In Lima, a dispute over the boundaries of presidential power has moved from the halls of the Palace to the courts, as investigators and the executive branch clash over whether a head of state's constitutional immunity extends to the physical space he inhabits. Harvey Colchado's legal team argues that the search of Peru's Presidential Palace — conducted under judicial mandate to investigate a corruption case — was not only lawful but an expression of the rule of law functioning as it should. The confrontation raises a question as old as republican government itself: where does the protection of office end and the accountability of the state begin?
- A search of Peru's Presidential Palace has ignited a constitutional standoff, with President Castillo's lawyers calling it a violation of the sanctity of the executive residence.
- Colchado's attorneys strike back with a precise legal argument: immunity under Peru's constitution protects the officeholder as a person, not the building around him.
- The raid was no rogue police action, they insist — it was ordered by a judge and executed by prosecutors within an active corruption investigation, placing it beyond executive interference.
- Peru's obligations under the UN Convention Against Corruption are invoked as an international anchor, framing any government pressure on anti-corruption authorities as a breach of treaty commitments.
- Colchado escalates by filing a protective legal action against President Castillo himself, alleging harassment and demanding the intimidation stop — turning the defendant into a plaintiff.
- The case now rests with Peru's judiciary, which faces a defining test of whether institutional independence can hold against the weight of the presidency.
Harvey Colchado's legal team moved swiftly to defend a search of Peru's Presidential Palace, rejecting claims from President Pedro Castillo's attorney Benji Espinoza that the operation violated constitutional protections. The raid, carried out on a Friday, was part of an investigation into Yenifer Paredes, the president's sister-in-law.
Attorneys Luis Naldos and Luciano López offered a pointed rebuttal: Peru's constitution grants immunity to the person holding office, not to the physical space where that person works. Without an explicit legal provision extending protection to the building itself, López argued, no such protection exists. Naldos reinforced this by stressing that the search was ordered by a judge and led by prosecutors — not a spontaneous police intervention — placing it squarely within the authority of a competent judicial proceeding that no outside power could lawfully obstruct.
López also drew on international law, noting that Peru's commitments under the UN Convention Against Corruption obligate the state to support anti-corruption authorities and prohibit the application of undue pressure against them — a framing that cast the government's objections as a potential treaty violation.
Colchado himself went further. On the same day as the Palace search, he filed a protective legal action against President Castillo and Interior Minister Willy Huerta, alleging harassment and retaliation for carrying out the raid. He asked the court to order the president to cease all intimidatory conduct. López called the case transcendental and urged the judiciary to open proceedings within ten days.
What began as a search for evidence has become a direct legal confrontation between an anti-corruption investigator and the president of the republic — a collision that Peru's courts must now resolve.
Harvey Colchado's legal team moved quickly to defend a controversial search of Peru's Presidential Palace, pushing back against accusations from the president's own lawyers that the raid violated constitutional protections. The operation, carried out on a Friday, was meant to gather evidence in an investigation into Yenifer Paredes, the president's sister-in-law. Benji Espinoza, representing President Pedro Castillo, had argued the search rested on a flawed legal foundation and breached the sanctity of the presidential residence itself.
Colchado's attorneys, Luis Naldos and Luciano López, rejected this framing entirely. In their view, the distinction was crucial: immunity under Peru's constitution shields the person holding office, not the building where that person works. "Immunity belongs to the individual or the official, not to the physical space," López explained during an appearance on RPP's program. "For it to work that way, some law or the constitution would have to say so explicitly, and it doesn't." The argument cut to the heart of the dispute—whether a president's constitutional protections extend to the walls around him.
Naldos emphasized that this was no arbitrary police action. The search had been ordered by a judge and was being conducted by prosecutors as part of an active corruption investigation. "This isn't some capricious intervention by the police," he said. "This is a proceeding led by the Public Ministry under a judicial mandate within the framework of an ongoing investigation. So who has the authority to second-guess this operation? The Constitution forbids any authority from interfering in a proceeding that's under the jurisdiction of a competent authority." The argument positioned the raid not as an overreach but as the proper functioning of judicial oversight.
López added another layer, invoking international law. Peru is a signatory to the United Nations Convention Against Corruption, which contains language obligating the state to support anti-corruption authorities without interference and to provide them the resources they need. "The state is prohibited from applying undue pressure on specialized anti-corruption authorities—whether police or prosecutors—and is obligated to facilitate their work," López noted. This framing recast the dispute as one about whether the government was honoring its international commitments.
Meanwhile, Colchado himself took a more aggressive stance. On the same day as the Palace search, he filed a protective legal action against President Castillo and Interior Minister Willy Huerta, alleging harassment and violations of his fundamental rights. The filing listed a series of incidents he characterized as intimidation, with particular emphasis on the president's legal team filing a complaint against him for executing the Palace raid. Colchado's request was straightforward: he wanted the president ordered to cease all intimidatory acts.
López indicated the protective action should be treated as urgent. "By its very nature, this kind of petition should move quickly, and this is a transcendental case," he said. "I believe the Judicial Power should open the process within the next ten days and set a hearing date so we can go to trial with all the defendants and settle this in the courts." The filing represented an escalation—Colchado was no longer just defending his actions but actively suing the president for what he saw as retaliation. The case now sat in the hands of Peru's courts, with both sides preparing for a confrontation that would test the boundaries of presidential power and the independence of law enforcement.
Notable Quotes
Immunity belongs to the individual or the official, not to the physical space. For it to work that way, some law or the constitution would have to say so explicitly, and it doesn't.— Luciano López, Colchado's attorney, on RPP
This is a proceeding led by the Public Ministry under a judicial mandate within the framework of an ongoing investigation. The Constitution forbids any authority from interfering in a proceeding that's under the jurisdiction of a competent authority.— Luis Naldos, Colchado's attorney
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does Colchado's team keep insisting immunity protects people, not places? Isn't that just semantic?
It's not semantic—it's structural. If immunity covered the building itself, then any investigation inside the Palace would be blocked, no matter who ordered it or why. That would make the president's residence untouchable, even for corruption probes.
But doesn't the president have some right to privacy in his own workplace?
That's what Espinoza argued. But Colchado's lawyers say the Constitution doesn't grant that. Immunity is personal—it protects the individual from prosecution, not the space around them.
So they're saying the search was legally clean?
More than that. They're saying it was mandatory. A judge ordered it, prosecutors ran it, and the state is supposed to support anti-corruption work. Blocking it would violate Peru's own international commitments.
Then why is Colchado filing a suit against the president?
Because the president's legal team filed a complaint against him for doing his job. Colchado sees that as retaliation—using the machinery of government to intimidate someone investigating the president's family.
Who decides if that's actually harassment or just normal legal pushback?
The courts. That's what the protective action is for. It forces a judge to examine whether the president's complaint is legitimate or a weapon.