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 characterized Arévalo’s stance—restricting the Executive Branch’s actions to whatever the courts dictate—as “insufficient”. The congressman contended that the Presidency has refrained from exercising “public authority” to address 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 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 difference between the two officials, therefore, lies in their interpretation of the scope of presidential action. Pérez calls for more active involvement, while Arévalo maintains that the conflict must be resolved through existing legal procedures.
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 assured that, from the Office of the President, he urged judicial authorities to investigate allegations of possible irregularities and legal violations that occurred during the university’s election process. At the same time, he reiterated that his involvement must remain within the constitutional framework.
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 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 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, maintains that any measure must avoid a potential violation of university autonomy or any action that could be challenged for exceeding presidential authority. His response reaffirms a stance of institutional prudence based on the separation of functions between the executive branch, university authorities, and judicial bodies.
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 is still connected to unresolved investigations and pending rulings, and until those outcomes are determined, the dispute between both sides will continue centering on the boundaries of presidential powers, university autonomy, and the institutional mechanisms available to handle grievances concerning the rector’s election.
