The turmoil at the University of San Carlos de Guatemala has triggered a public dispute between President Bernardo Arévalo and Congressman Samuel Pérez, an executive-branch ally in Congress. The clash revolves around how far presidential authority can extend in addressing accusations tied to the selection of Walter Mazariegos as rector, along with the constitutional boundaries and the scope of university autonomy.
Pérez challenged the president’s choice to wait for court decisions before proceeding with additional measures, while Arévalo replied that the presidency is not permitted to exceed its lawful powers and maintained that the legislator’s remarks expose an “information gap” about 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 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 rejected this argument during *La Ronda*. The president indicated that there is a lack of understanding regarding the powers the Constitution grants the president and noted that his administration must respect the legal limits of its actions.
In the president’s view, any action that exceeds those authorities might compromise the autonomy of the USAC. For that reason, the executive branch has upheld its decision to await the courts’ rulings and to request that the appropriate institutions examine the complaints submitted 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 Rejects Allegations of Possible Agreements
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 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 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 therefore pairs his political critique with the pursuit of legal action, maintaining that the executive branch should continue exercising its permitted avenues of leadership rather than pausing initiatives while judicial decisions are pending.
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 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.
