Demandan investiduras de tres congresistas que votaron contra impuestos saludables

0:00 In the WU the report of Colonel with the congressmen, who can lose their credentials if determined by the Council of State, for having voted negatively the healthy law and, at the same time, having received money contributions for their campaigns of BAVARIAI Postobón in seconds the names of the three congressmen. Daniel Report Monday Good morning, July. This is today' s Colonel report. Just a few minutes ago, a lawsuit was filed before the Council of State for the loss of investiture against three congressmen. This is Senator Carlos Abraham Jiménez, the House Rep Adriana Carolina Arbeláez and the House Rep Jairo Humberto Cristo Correa. The reason is that these three legislators participated in the debates and voted on the current opposite approval of the so- called healthy taxes, despite having received contributions from companies interested in the fate of this rule. Healthy taxes were created last year through a tax reform that approved a tax on ultra- processed sugary beverages and another tax on ultra- processed, industrially processed edible products with high added sugars,

1:33 sodium or saturated fats. Then there were initiatives to postpone the entry into force of healthy taxes. Deferrals mean a delay in the entry of these taxes, with negative consequences for the health of consumers and very positive for the pocket of recognised companies. This tax directly affects the interests of companies producing or importing ultra- processed soft drinks or groceries. Among them are several that have in three social object the production of all kinds of drinks such as soft drinks, malts, faljos, juices and flavored waters, also postobón, whose social object consecrates the production, import on base and distribution of soft drinks, soft drinks, fruit juices and malts, among others. The point is that for discussions and votes related to healthy taxes it was not declared disabled. Senator Carlos Hayran Jiménez, who, according to the records in the National Electoral Council, received donations for his campaign in Bavaria for eighty- one million pesos and for forty - five million pesos for a total of one hundred and twenty- six million pesos. In a similar situation is the representative to the Adriana Chamber, Carolina Rveláez, who voted to apply for the entry into force of healthy taxes, despite having received three contributions from Postobón that total seventy million pesos, and one

3:05 from Bavaria for forty- five million pesos, that is, one hundred and fifteen million pesos of stakeholder contributions for his election. It is on the part of these companies, therefore, that they have a great interest in the approval or delay of this initiative. The third congressman whose investiture will be sued is the representative to the Chamber Jairo Humberto Cristo Correa of Norte de Santander, who did not declare himself prevented for the procedure, although he received thirty- six million pesos to Bavaria and ninety million pesos to Postobón, for a total of one hundred and twenty- six million pesos declared as contributions or donations to the National Electoral Council. The lawsuit for the loss of investiture against the three legislators who did not express their impediment was filed this morning by attorney Jessica Hoyos Morales, president of the Colectivo José de l r Restrepo, whom we greet at this time. Good morning, Dr Luz, good morning, Daniel, eager for the whole audience, Dr Aoyos. Please explain briefly what was the rule that, in your opinion, these three congressmen, whose investiture you have just sent to the Council of State, violated. The three congressmen did not declare themselves prevented, as a ruling of the Constitutional Court pointed out in the Judgment thirteen two of two thousand twenty- one, which precisely declared the first article

4:39 of the law of two thousand three of two thousand nineteen, amending the Fifth Law of Congress, unaffordable. That article, the lawyer' s collective sued him because he considered it not a conflict of interest to discuss bills that directly affected or benefited the economic sector that had financed their electoral campaign. Then, the Constitutional Court, unanimously eight zeros, decided that, indeed, it is a conflict of interest when congressmen participate in debates that may directly or indirectly benefit donors from their campaigns. And in this case, because in fact, these three congressmen participated mainly in a debate was the general budget of the Nation on October 18 last year, in which they intended to postpone the entry into force of healthy taxes, that is, that it would not enter into force last year, but two years later. And because they are taxes that civil society organizations in the country have been trying for more than seven years to ensure that in Colombia, it is finally applied to the extent that it is a recommendation, among others, of the World Health Organization. And already as you pointed out, because these three congressmen received direct funding from both Bavaria and Poeston, and did not declare their impedence. That is why we are putting forward these

6:11 demands for the loss of investiture mainly by demanding, therefore, respect for democratic principles. Congressmen, when elected as congressmen, have to legislate for all and for all, not for the benefit of the economic interests of those who benefited from their electoral campaigns. There were congressmen in the same situation of them, of these three legislators, who received donations of drooling and aposton, but they did declare their impediment in the discussions. Yes, there were congressmen who, in the various discussions, received even by party, received funding from these sugar beverage industries and declared their impediment, that is, they were known in Congress.

6:57 But some did and some didn' t. These s Jiménez, the representative Adriana Carolinarveláez and the representative to the Chamber Jair Humberto Cristo have something in common. All three are members of the Radical Change Party. In this case there is some consequence for that political grouping, or they will simply be replaced by the next one on the list, because the demand to lose investiture is individual, that is to say we are doing it not in front of the party, but each one, already according to what the Council of State said, for if it succeeds, they will be replaced. The three of them.

7:40 Ok usually how long does the Council of State take to resolve a claim for loss of investiture. Dr Daniel holes in terms say it' s very fast, but it can take three to six months. The State Council has been delayed in other claims of losses investigates that is, between three and six months we will know if these congressmen continue to be or if they lose their investiture because they have received money from companies interested in a norm that they discussed and voted for a thousand thanks to Dr Jessicaballos, President of the box since the year two thousand fifteen. Nine years ago, the Ministry of Health of the time, headed by Alejandro Gaviria, had tried to get the approval of healthy taxes on soft drinks, other soft drinks and ultra- processed foods.

8:37 The rule had a seven- year cross for approval on behalf of the loby of the companies concerned, which have true congressional benches, firmer and more faithful than those of the political parties themselves. This was today' s Colonel report. Thank you very much.