The crisis at the University of San Carlos de Guatemala has sparked a public disagreement between President Bernardo Arévalo and Congressman Samuel Pérez, an ally of the executive branch in Congress. The disagreement centers on the scope of presidential powers in response to allegations related to the election of Walter Mazariegos as rector, as well as on the limits established by the Constitution and university autonomy.
Pérez challenged the president’s choice to wait for court decisions before proceeding with additional measures, while Arévalo replied that the presidency is not permitted to exceed its lawful powers and maintained that the legislator’s remarks expose an “information gap” about 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.
Distinctions Concerning Presidential Authority
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 is directed at the government’s failure to intervene more broadly regarding Walter Mazariegos’ continued tenure. Pérez believes that the presidential response does not align with the role that, in his view, the executive branch should assume in light of the conflict.
Arévalo rejected this argument during *La Ronda*. The president indicated that there is a lack of understanding regarding the powers the Constitution grants the president and noted that his administration must respect the legal limits of its actions.
According to the president’s position, any intervention exceeding those powers could affect the autonomy of the USAC. For that reason, the executive branch has maintained its decision to await the rulings of the courts and to request that the relevant institutions investigate the complaints filed 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 likewise dismissed the notion that any secret arrangements were tied to the election process for university authorities. Arévalo emphasized that such claims lack substance and attributed them either to misinformation or to the “bad faith” of those voicing 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 portrays this exchange as the earliest openly acknowledged divergence between the executive branch and one of its key legislative partners over the university crisis, emphasizing that their split centers not on evaluating Mazariegos’s administration but on which instruments should be employed to deal with it.
Pérez Initiates Legal Proceedings Against Mazariegos
While questioning the president’s actions, Samuel Pérez is pursuing a legal agenda against Walter Mazariegos. Among the actions mentioned are criminal complaints alleging the possible offense of abuse of authority.
The congressman therefore pairs his political critique with the pursuit of legal action, maintaining that the executive branch should continue exercising its permitted avenues of leadership rather than pausing initiatives while judicial decisions are pending.
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.
