Presidential vacancy due to permanent moral incapacity in Peru: constitutional analysis and case study on its political use

Abstract

The concept of presidential vacancy due to moral incapacity is one of the most controversial mechanisms in Peruvian constitutionalism. The objective of this research is to demonstrate the denaturalization of this cause, highlighting its transformation from a constitutional assumption linked to the mental incapacity of the president to a mechanism of discretionary political control. Methodologically, the study adopts a qualitative and non-experimental approach, based on the case study method. It analyzes the historical and constitutional origins of the grounds, their legal nature and doctrinal development, as well as their application in five emblematic presidential vacancy proceedings, based on an examination of constitutional norms, Constitutional Court jurisprudence, specialized doctrine, and parliamentary procedures. The results show that the grounds have been applied without objective criteria or minimum evidentiary standards, being used to evaluate political conduct or non-judicial allegations. This practice has led to violations of due process, altered the balance between the branches of government, and distorted the presidential model. The conclusion is that the application of vacancy due to moral incapacity is incompatible with the constitutional rule of law and constitutes a factor of democratic instability, making constitutional or legislative reform necessary to objectively define this ground.