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 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.
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 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.
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 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 position places the resolution of the conflict in the hands of the institutions responsible for adjudicating legal proceedings. For the Executive Branch, respect for these procedures is part of the obligation not to intervene directly in the university’s internal decisions.
Pérez’s position introduces a separate demand, and while the congressman has likewise turned to judicial channels, he maintains that the president’s leadership could exert a broader influence in dealing with 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 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 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.
