Chile’s Constitutional Resilience: Assessing President Kast’s Aborted Amendments

Chilean President José Antonio Kast withdrew two proposed constitutional amendments in October 2026 after facing widespread criticism, following two separate initiatives introduced earlier that year. The failed legislative packages, which sought to bypass the Constitutional Tribunal and establish a sweeping new executive state of emergency to combat organized crime, have reignited intense debate over whether the ultra-conservative leader harbors authoritarian ambitions or operates within constitutional norms.

The First Aborted Amendment Targeted Constitutional Oversight

The first contested constitutional amendment was leaked to the press in early August 2026. It sought to prevent the Constitutional Tribunal from invalidating an ordinary bill introduced on 12 June 2026 that stripped individuals convicted of vandalism of certain social rights.

The Tribunal had previously declared unconstitutional portions of a separate bill denying free university tuition to juveniles convicted of violent crimes. To bypass this judicial check, the administration proposed inserting a new Article 9 bis into the Constitution, denying state-funded benefits related to education, healthcare, work, and social security to anyone convicted of organized crime, terrorism, or drug trafficking for the duration of their sentence and for 15 years following release.

Furthermore, the proposal sought to amend Article 19(2) and Article 19(26) of the Constitution to shield the new measures from non-discrimination guarantees and protections of the essence of fundamental rights. The explanatory text of the proposal candidly acknowledged that the amendment was necessary due to the excessive concern for due process exhibited by Chile’s Constitutional Tribunal.

The leak triggered immediate blowback from legal experts and columnists. The final political blow came from Guillermo Ramírez, President of the Unión Demócrata Independiente (UDI) and a loyal member of the government coalition, who announced his party would not support a measure undermining core constitutional protections, forcing the government to scrap the bill before it reached Congress.

The Second Amendment Proposed Sweeping Executive Emergency Powers

Undaunted by the first setback, the Kast administration formally submitted a second, more expansive constitutional amendment to Congress on 10 August 2026. The centerpiece of the proposal was a new state of public security that would have granted the executive wartime-level powers normally reserved for a state of assembly.

Under the proposed framework, President Kast could have unilaterally declared the state of emergency for an initial 240 days without congressional authorization. The powers included suspending personal freedom and mobility, restricting association, intercepting or searching communications, and seizing property—measures significantly more intrusive than those permitted under the existing state of siege.

The proposal also sought to empower the executive, with approval from two-thirds of the Senate, to designate specific groups as terrorist or organized crime organizations, a function traditionally reserved for the judiciary.

Opposition Coalesces After Public Polling Reveals Resistance

The decisive political break arrived when Arturo Squella, leader of President Kast’s own political party, admitted in a televised interview that he would have rejected the exact same amendment if it had been introduced by the political opposition.

Legislative Withdrawal and Ongoing Debate Over Democratic Resilience

On 6 October 2026, the Kast administration officially withdrew the second constitutional amendment. The government announced it would instead back a bipartisan proposal sponsored by a group of senators from both the ruling coalition and the opposition to strengthen existing states of emergency through democratic channels.

Analysts remain deeply divided over what the episodes signify. Observers who view Kast as an institutionalist argue the failed amendments reflect hasty policymaking driven by intense pressure to combat crime rather than a calculated push for authoritarian control. Critics counter that the attempts reveal genuine illiberal impulses to concentrate power, leaving Chile’s constitutional safeguards to be tested by future legislative battles.