Chilean justice rejects a lawsuit against former president Gabriel Boric
The Copiapó Court of Appeals has made an important decision in the Chilean judicial sphere. The court rejected a request to strip former Chilean president Gabriel Boric of his legal immunity. This resolution ends a legal dispute that began due to public comments made by the leader regarding educational management in the region.
The case was originally filed by Daslav Mihovilovic Pérez, who served as director of the Local Public Education Service (SLEP) in Atacama. Mihovilovic Pérez decided to sue the former president after considering that his statements affected his honor. The plaintiff's goal was to achieve the removal of Boric's immunity to be able to initiate a criminal trial against him.
The controversy arose from a specific phrase uttered by the leader: "It's good that we fired the director of the SLEP." With these words, Boric expressed his satisfaction with Mihovilovic's departure from his position. The former director argued that this phrase represented a "serious insult with publicity," a serious accusation in the Chilean legal system.
However, the judges of the Copiapó Court did not share the plaintiff's view. After analyzing the background of the case, the court determined that Boric's words did not constitute a crime. According to the ruling, the comment falls within political criticism and does not have the intention of criminally insulting the former official.
A fundamental point of this process was the request for removal of immunity. In Chile, high-ranking authorities possess legal protection that prevents them from being prosecuted without prior authorization from the courts. By rejecting this request, the court confirmed that the former president will not have to face a trial for this reason, thus protecting his institutional position.
This case has captured the attention of the media and public opinion. The situation of the Local Public Education Services has been a sensitive issue in the country, and this judicial decision clarifies the limits of freedom of expression for authorities when speaking about the management of public officials.
Finally, with this resolution, the judicial system closes a chapter of legal tensions for the former leader. The news highlights the importance of judicial independence in cases involving high-level political figures, ensuring that criticisms of public administration do not automatically become criminal offenses.