The removal of the president due to moral incapacity in Peru: an unresolved issue that weakens democratic presidencialism

Bayona Castro E.R. · Clio. Revista de Historia, Ciencias Humanas y Pensamiento Critico. (2026) · DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17197663

Resumen

The removal of the president of Peru on grounds of moral incapacity has been a recurrent and controversial mechanism in the country’s political history, often applied in moments of crisis and confrontation between branches of government. Since its first inclusion in the 1828 Constitution, this figure has lacked a precise legal definition and a specialized authority to determine it, creating legal uncertainty and enabling Congress especially since the 1920 Constitution granted it exclusive competence to interpret it discretionally. Peruvian history offers emblematic examples, such as the removal of José de la Riva Agüero in 1823, the overthrow of Guillermo Billinghurst in 1914, the dismissal of Martín Vizcarra in 2020, and the ousting of Pedro Castillo in 2022. These episodes reveal how moral incapacity has been invoked more as a political instrument than a legal safeguard, undermining institutional stability and democratic legitimacy. In comparative perspective, other presidential systems, such as those of the United States and Brazil, define removal mechanisms based on objective grounds, such as “high crimes and misdemeanors” or “crimes of responsibility.” In contrast, Peru’s ambiguous framework has led to reform proposals aimed at establishing clear and verifiable parameters to strengthen governance, ensure legal certainty, and consolidate democratic presidentialism.

Instituciones: Universidad Nacional de Piura