The discussion over the reform of the Glacier Law added a new chapter of tension. The physicist and former head of the National Atomic Energy Commission (CNEA) Adriana Serquis confirmed that, together with deputies, they filed a formal objection against the public hearing held in the Congress, which she directly labeled as “a farce.”
“We are presenting an objection that was submitted to the president before the hearing began,” explained Serquis, in conversation with Víctor Hugo Morales on Radio 750.
As she detailed, one of the main criticisms is the lack of real participation: “We don’t even know to this day how those who could participate were selected. We see that it is 0.3% of the number of registered people,” she denounced.
Public hearing on the reform of the law
For the former head of the CNEA, the hearing also did not meet essential criteria such as transparency and the deliberative nature. “It is restricting orality and debate.
It does not guarantee effective participation nor the reasonableness of the process,” she stated, and listed a series of “flaws” that, in her view, completely invalidate the instance.
In that sense, she also warned that fundamental principles in environmental matters are being violated. “The principle of non-regression is not being guaranteed, which should ensure that there are no setbacks in environmental protection,” she pointed out.
Serquis also highlighted the non-binding nature of public hearings, which limits their real impact on decision-making. However, she appealed to the political responsibility of the legislators:
“We hope that those who are going to vote can feel some shame and that the effort of the population to make themselves heard influences the decision-making process,” she stated.
The scientist went further and raised a fundamental concern about the institutional functioning. “We are losing a large part of democracy.
In a place where a democratic act should be celebrated, the opposite is happening,” she affirmed.
Finally, she stated that the immediate goal is to highlight what they consider an irregular process: “Our role is to make as clear as possible what is happening to us. That is why we are denouncing it,” she concluded.
