New Judicial Retreat for Pension Reductions That the Government Launched

July 12, 2018 – 19:14
Attorney Gabriel de Vedia ruled that retroactivity is "unconstitutional" and argued that pension badets should be "adjusted in accordance with the Pension Mobility Act approved in 2009" and not with the new formula approved in December 2018.

In accordance with what was declared in June by the Federal Social Security Chamber, Attorney Gabriel de Vedia today issued an unfavorable opinion on pension increases to be established with the new formula approved by the Congress. at the end of

de Vedia ruled that retroactivity is "unconstitutional" and ruled that pension badets should "be adjusted in accordance with the Retirees Mobility Act approved in 2009."

The representative of Public Prosecution signed five judgments in favor of the amparos initiated by retirees against the new formula. Thus, the official stated that increases in pensions, pensions and the Universal Children's Allowance (AUH) should be reviewed to determine whether they were lower than those established by the Retirees' Mobility Act, promulgated in December. 2009.

in the first semester
In the first semester, pensions, pensions and other social security benefits accumulated a loss of more than 4%, since the increases added 11.73%, against inflation that could climb to 16

De Vedia explained in the writings that the March rises were to be made with the previous formula, so the adjustment would have had to reach 14.5% instead of the applied 5.7%.

"Retroactivity is unconstitutional, there is no doubt and I do not think that at this stage anyone will argue that it is constitutional because the other one law was in force ", explained the prosecutor in a statement to the newspaper Página 12.

Prosecutor Gabriel de Vedia [1965901] 0] De Vedia, said:" I still do not say that it is unconstitutional because that you must see what is going on and how the indices are changing, but I see a feeling of regression. "

In accordance with the opinion of the prosecutor, the Federal Social Security Chamber declared unconstitutional the payment of March to retired because the previous formula had to be applied.