This session, the Constitution, Legislation, Justice, and Regulation Committee of the Upper House met to continue processing the draft agreement that amends the Senate Regulations, which aims to establish controls to detect the consumption of narcotics or psychotropic substances (Bill No. S 2.718-09).
At today's meeting, the Secretary General of the Chamber of Deputies, Miguel Landeros, was present, who explained how the current internal protocol of the Chamber for controlling drug use among deputies works and how it was defined.
Additionally, the Secretary General of the Senate, Luis Rojas, was also present at the session, who briefed the committee on the main aspects to be defined in the current project, making some observations and recommendations for amending the regulations.
Firstly, Rojas advised that there should be an initial legal mandate regarding the obligation of senators to undergo this type of testing.
"We have the authority to issue regulations on this matter, but it would probably be better to have a constitutional or legal mandate in this regard," he stated.
On the other hand, he pointed out that the frequency proposed in the project would be too low considering the legislative period of the parliamentarians.
"The text states that during each legislative period, all senators will be tested at least once—remember that the term is eight years—and..."
AI Brief
Your highlights
Today, the Constitution, Legislation, Justice, and Regulation Committee of the Upper House convened to continue processing the draft agreement that amends the Senate Regulations, aimed at establishing controls to detect the consumption of narcotics or psychotropic substances (Bulletin No. S 2.718-09). Present at the session was the Secretary General of the Chamber of Deputies, Miguel Landeros, who explained how the current internal protocol for drug control among deputies was developed and functions. Additionally, the Secretary General of the Senate, Luis Rojas, was also present, providing the committee with the main aspects to be defined in the current project, offering some observations and recommendations for modifying the regulation. Firstly, Rojas advised that there should be an initial legal mandate regarding the obligation of senators to undergo such tests. "We have the authority to issue regulations on this matter, but it would probably be better to have a constitutional or legal mandate in this regard," he stated. Furthermore, he pointed out that the frequency proposed in the project is too low considering the legislative term of the parliamentarians. "The text states that during each legislative period, all senators will be tested at least once — remember that the term is eight years — and it also adds that they can be randomly selected up to twice, which would mean there will be less control during a four-year period," he explained. In this regard, he recalled that current regulations already require ministers, undersecretaries, presidential delegates, regional ministers, and heads of service to undergo tests at least twice a year, and at the municipal level, mayors and councilors are also required to undergo at least one test per year to detect the consumption of illicit narcotic or psychotropic substances. "There is a difference here that seems difficult to explain from a political and institutional perspective: high administrative authorities have to do it twice a year, while senators might only do it once in eight years," he said. Additionally, he indicated that the regulation should explicitly specify what type of sample will be used for these tests, as the current project only mentions sample collection without indicating whether it will be urine, hair, blood, or other. He also warned that the substances to be controlled and their respective cutoff points should be precisely defined, "because, for example, it is not legally the same to say that cocaine, marijuana or cannabis, amphetamine, etc., appeared without a specifically defined analytical threshold, especially considering that the result could lead to disciplinary sanctions." Regarding the results, he warned that a positive sample should not automatically lead to sanctions; rather, a positive result should be confirmed and definitive once the corresponding analytical confirmation has been performed, the counter-analysis procedure has been completed or expired, and possible medical explanations have been reviewed. Furthermore, he suggested raising the standard proposed in the text for the laboratory, proposing that the analysis should be carried out by an authorized laboratory recognized by the competent health authority, with current accreditation for the analytical methods used according to recognized national or international standards. The laboratory selection, he indicated, should be made through a public tender. "Overall, I believe the project has a good initial structure, especially regarding the authority's decisions, the external laboratory, confidentiality, and the right to a counter-sample; however, some modifications should be prioritized, we believe, before approving it, particularly based on the positions we have taken," he concluded. After parliamentary discussion of the secretary general's observations, the committee agreed to issue guidelines to the secretariat to prepare a draft bill, which will be presented to Secretary General Rojas and subsequently to the senators to advance the process.