The turmoil at the University of San Carlos de Guatemala has triggered a public dispute between President Bernardo Arévalo and Congressman Samuel Pérez, an executive-branch ally in Congress. The clash revolves around how far presidential authority can extend in addressing accusations tied to the selection of Walter Mazariegos as rector, along with the constitutional boundaries and the scope of university autonomy.
Pérez questioned the president’s decision to await judicial rulings before taking further action. Arévalo responded that the presidency cannot act beyond its authorized powers and argued that the legislator’s statements reveal an “information gap” regarding the executive branch’s authority.
The debate reveals two contrasting perspectives on how the government should address a controversy still awaiting judicial rulings, and although both sides contest the legitimacy of Mazariegos’s administration, they disagree on what kind of response the government ought to pursue.
Differences Regarding Presidential Powers
Samuel Pérez described Arévalo’s position—to limit the Executive Branch’s actions to what the courts determine—as “insufficient”. The congressman argued that the Presidency has avoided using “public authority” to help resolve the university crisis.
His criticism centers on the government’s broader failure to step in regarding Walter Mazariegos’ ongoing tenure, and Pérez argues that the president’s reaction falls short of the responsibilities he believes the executive branch should exercise in the face of the conflict.
Arévalo dismissed this claim during La Ronda. The president remarked that there is a limited grasp of the authority the Constitution grants the nation’s leader and emphasized that his administration is obliged to operate within its legal boundaries.
In the president’s view, any action that exceeds those authorities might compromise the autonomy of the USAC. For that reason, the executive branch has upheld its decision to await the courts’ rulings and to request that the appropriate institutions examine the complaints submitted during the rector election process.
The distinction between the two officials ultimately stems from how they interpret the reach of presidential authority, with Pérez urging a more assertive role and Arévalo insisting that the dispute should be settled through the established legal framework.
Arévalo Dismisses Claims of Potential Deals
The president also denied the existence of any hidden agreements related to the election process for university officials. Arévalo stated that these allegations are unfounded and attributed them to a lack of information or to the “bad faith” of those who made them.
The president affirmed that he had pressed judicial authorities, through the Office of the President, to look into reports of potential irregularities and legal breaches that may have taken place during the university’s election process, while also emphasizing that his role must stay strictly within constitutional limits.
This stance entrusts the settlement of the dispute to the institutions tasked with handling legal cases, while for the Executive Branch, honoring these procedures reflects its duty to refrain from directly influencing the university’s internal choices.
Pérez’s stance raises a different demand. Although the congressman has also resorted to judicial mechanisms, he believes that the presidential leadership can play a more far-reaching role in addressing the situation at USAC.
Perspectiva presents this exchange as the first public difference of opinion between the executive branch and one of its main legislative allies regarding the university crisis. The disagreement does not concern the assessment of Mazariegos’s administration, but rather the tools that should be used to address it.
Pérez Pursues Legal Action Against Mazariegos
While raising doubts about the president’s conduct, Samuel Pérez continues to advance a legal case targeting Walter Mazariegos, which includes criminal filings that cite a potential charge of abuse of authority.
The congressman thus combines his political criticism with the use of legal proceedings. His position is that awaiting judicial rulings should not prevent the executive branch from exercising other forms of leadership within its authority.
Arévalo, for his part, stresses that any step taken should steer clear of infringing on university autonomy or triggering challenges for overstepping presidential powers. His reply underscores a careful institutional approach grounded in the clear division of responsibilities among the executive branch, university leadership, and the judiciary.
The controversy creates tension in the relationship between the Presidency and one of its allies in Congress. It also reflects a difference of opinion on how state power should be used in the face of an institutional crisis: through more active political intervention, as Pérez proposes, or by respecting judicial processes and constitutional limits, as Arévalo argues.
The situation at USAC remains tied to pending investigations and rulings. Until those decisions are made, the debate between the two parties will continue to focus on the scope of presidential authority, university autonomy, and the institutional channels available to address complaints related to the rector’s election.