Andrés Longton: I do not agree that (the states of emergency) are under the orders of the police.

PoliticsThe RN senator outlined some "red lines" regarding the government's security agenda, including doubts about a new State of Constitutional Exception, the constitutional reform, and the powers related to the registration of criminal gangs. 09-08-2026. ANDRÉS LONGTON. PHOTO: PEDRO RODRÍGUEZ. PEDRO RODRIGUEZ CommentsThe RN senator, Andrés Longton, is part of two key commissions for processing the security agenda announced by President José Antonio Kast: Constitution and Security. In that context, interviewed on La Tercera's streaming program, Desde la Redacción, by Rodrigo Álvarez and Juan Andrés Quezada, he detailed some doubts he has about the initiative. What do you think of the constitutional reform included in the agenda?I would distinguish between several elements of the constitutional reform. We still do not have the project, but with the draft I was able to see and analyze: first, I think it is important to incorporate some elements of the rigidity of the prison system into the Constitution so that in the future this is not subject to amparo resources, claiming arbitrary discrimination (...). The part related to the list of criminal organizations also seems interesting to me, as well as the seizure of assets. Other elements are more complex, related to the new state of exception. A new state of exception is contemplated, with more limited scope and duration, under police authority and not the Armed Forces (FF. AA.)I, at least, do not agree that (the states of exception) are under the orders of the police and not the military. That is a first red line. I believe the FF. AA. must be involved for command reasons. I also think it is important to establish what differences there will be with the state of emergency (...). I want to know what it will imply to see if it is indeed more of a state of emergency or has distinctive elements that justify creating a state of exception. Today I do not see that differentiation (...), I do not see it as necessary. The reform seeks to give constitutional rank to public security. I believe that the concept of the Constitution in Article 1 is broad enough because it speaks of the security of the nation, which includes internal and external security of the State. Therefore, I see no reason to modify Article 1, especially considering that it is a guiding principle of the entire Constitution and any modification could have unforeseen implications. I need to be persuaded of something different to change my mind, but today I see it as more symbolic. In the draft they gave you today, were there more details about the agenda? It was particularly about the constitutional reform, the state of exception, the criminal organizations... I have a nuance there. I think it is important that there be a list regarding criminal organizations, but it must be accompanied by information provided by the Executive with the institutions responsible for criminal prosecution, and then this should be defined judicially. I do not think it is right for the Senate to define it, because it is a political institution. The scope must be in the judicial domain. More about:Desde la RedacciónAndrés LongtonSenateSecurity AgendaRNSecurity AgendaMartín Arrau