There can be no privileges when there are serious crimes
The confirmation of the judicial convictions for corruption against Cristina Kirchner and, previously, against Amado Boudou , leads us to ask the following question: Should the State use public funds to support privileged benefits for those who have committed crimes in the exercise of public office? An institutional system that prides itself on honoring the values of the common good and equality before the law does not allow for double interpretations.
The lifetime pensions provided for in Law 24.018 of December 1991 for former presidents and vice presidents were conceived as an exceptional form of institutional recognition. But This exceptionality, based on trust and decorum, becomes a contradiction when it benefits officials who betrayed that mandate, committing serious crimes against the public treasury they were supposed to administer. .
Both cases are particularly serious. Amado Boudou, convicted in 2018 of passive bribery and negotiations incompatible with public office in the Ciccone case –a conviction upheld by the Supreme Court of Justice two years later–, received more than 236 million pesos in privileged retirement benefits since 2020, despite having a final conviction. In November 2024, ANSES revoked –not merely suspended– his benefits. This technical difference is important: the revocation implies that the benefit should never have been granted and entitles the State to claim restitution of the total amount collected plus any applicable adjustments. In fact, days ago, the national government filed a lawsuit to recover the amount improperly received by the former vice president.
Cristina Kirchner, for her part, was sentenced to six years in prison and a lifelong ban from holding public office for fraud against the public administration in the Roads cause , sentences that were also upheld by the Supreme Court in a recent ruling with sound arguments. This represents a loss to the State of 85 billion pesos, this figure being only the tip of a gigantic iceberg. In her case, ANSES had decided last November to cancel the two benefits she was receiving: one for her status as former president and another for having been the spouse of former President Néstor Kirchner . The amount she received last November—more than 21 million pesos in cash, 35 million gross—was then equivalent to 89 minimum pensions.
The amount that Cristina Kirchner received last November – more than 21 million pesos in cash, 35 million gross – was then equivalent to 89 minimum pensions.
Even with a final judgment against him, he is seeking reinstatement of both benefits in court. The government is now considering submitting, as a "new fact," a ratification of his conviction to support its rejection of his claim. The difference with Boudou's case—also barred from holding public office for life—is one of form; fundamentally, the elements justifying the revocation of the benefit in one are identical to those in the other.
The restitution claims raised by the former president include an additional 6 million pesos for residence in the southern zone, since He had declared his address in Santa Cruz, although it was known that he lived in the Federal Capital. . For receiving this bonus, ANSES filed a criminal complaint against the former official last year "for alleged crimes of fraud, defrauding the public administration, and ideological falsehood." The cut in this additional pension will likely lead to a new lawsuit, which will be considered if it does not conflict with the residence proposed by Cristina Kirchner and accepted by the courts for her house arrest in the Buenos Aires neighborhood of Constitución.
The legal argument is clear. Law 24.018 excludes those removed for poor performance from the right to benefits. Although it does not expressly mention those convicted of crimes, the prevailing interpretation equates criminal convictions with a higher form of ethical and functional disqualification. This is how ANSES understood it when applying the criterion of "supervening unworthiness." Furthermore, the Penal Code establishes that those sentenced to more than three years are suspended from their right to retirement and pension benefits for the duration of their sentence. Article 36 of the Constitution itself penalizes those who commit crimes against the institutional order with the loss of political rights, and at the end of the paragraph extends this sanction to anyone who commits a serious intentional crime against the State that entails enrichment. Such a penalty will be disqualified from holding public office or employment for the period determined by law.
Those who invoke supposed acquired rights or object to the lack of an impeachment trial forget that there is no acquired right to what is illegitimate. The lifetime allowance is not a right to food, pension, or contributory benefits: it is a favor from the State and, as such, can be denied or revoked if the ethical conditions that legitimize it are violated. This is even more so when the simultaneous receipt of two benefits—as in the case of the former president—expressly contravenes Article 5 of the law itself, which provides that such receipt of the privileged allowance "is incompatible with the enjoyment of any national, provincial, or municipal retirement, pension, or gratuity benefit."
It is imperative that the State formally revoke the privilege allocations to all those convicted in the exercise of public office and initiate the relevant legal actions for the return of the unduly collected sums.
Some legal experts criticize the fact that these decisions were issued by an administrative authority like ANSES (National Social Security Administration) and not by the judiciary. However, it is worth remembering that legality in public office requires interpreting regulations in light of the public interest, and that failure to take judicial action does not hinder the duty to prevent the waste of public resources. If a public official convicted of stealing from the state continues to collect millions in government funds, in addition to the blatant contradiction, the institutional discredit is compounded, which is automatic and devastating.
Given this situation, the contrast between the two cases reveals an unacceptable dualism. While the former vice president's benefit was revoked and he is being required to repay the benefits, the former president's benefit was simply canceled, thus leaving open the possibility of its reinstatement, even retroactively, if the courts do not intervene. Such a scenario not only offends the common sense of millions of Argentines who abide by the law and receive pensions that fall far short of basic needs, but also erodes the legitimacy of the system itself.
It is imperative that the State unify criteria, formally revoke the privileges granted to all those convicted of corruption in the performance of public functions, and initiate the appropriate legal action to recover the amounts improperly collected.
There can be no honor where there has been a crime. The democratic system, with its mechanisms for the separation of powers and institutional controls, seeks to prevent and punish corruption. It's time for our institutions to honor these principles and for those reluctant to abide by the law and respect rulings to internalize that there can be no privileges where there is a conviction.
lanacion
%3Aformat(jpg)%3Aquality(99)%3Awatermark(f.elconfidencial.com%2Ffile%2Fbae%2Feea%2Ffde%2Fbaeeeafde1b3229287b0c008f7602058.png%2C0%2C275%2C1)%2Ff.elconfidencial.com%2Foriginal%2F147%2F70d%2Fbf1%2F14770dbf119ed7bdc53be23458c609df.jpg&w=1280&q=100)
