During the recent presidential debate, Roberto Sánchez, candidate for Juntos por el Perú (JP), characterized his tenure as Minister of Foreign Trade and Tourism (Mincetur) during the administration of Pedro Castillo as “impeccable.” However, this framing overlooks a pending constitutional accusation against him regarding alleged corruption during his time in that office.
A Tenure Under Scrutiny
Sánchez Palomino served as a minister from July 28, 2021, until December 7, 2022, the day of Pedro Castillo’s attempted coup. His term was marked by various allegations, including the potential misuse of the ministry’s petty cash for personal expenses and claims of illicit payments made in exchange for job positions within the sector.
Most significantly, in 2025, the Office of the Prosecutor of the Nation filed a constitutional accusation against Sánchez for the alleged crime of “incompatible negotiation.” This charge involves a public official who improperly interests themselves in contracts or operations to benefit themselves or third parties, a crime punishable by four to six years in prison and disqualification from public office.
Did You Know? The constitutional accusation alleges that Roberto Sánchez directly intervened to hire Daniel Abarca Soto as an advisor, despite Abarca Soto lacking a formal contract at the time and failing to follow regular administrative channels for his curriculum vitae submission.
Political Allegiances and Distancing
Despite his current campaign rhetoric, Sánchez’s relationship with the now-sentenced Pedro Castillo has been marked by contradictions. While Sánchez recently reaffirmed his loyalty to the former president during the debate, his actions on December 7, 2022, told a different story. After initially supporting the administration, Sánchez resigned via social media following the coup attempt and abstained from voting on the vacancy motion against Castillo.
The Ministry of Public Prosecution previously included Sánchez in a case regarding alleged rebellion, citing testimony that he had congratulated Castillo following the coup announcement. While the Supreme Court later excluded him from the rebellion charge, noting that his alleged words did not constitute a criminal act of rebellion, the court did observe that his behavior suggested an “opinion” or “conformity” with the attempt to subvert the constitutional order.
Expert Insight: The candidate’s attempt to balance a public narrative of “impeccable” management with his history as a key minister in a fallen administration creates significant political friction. As the constitutional accusation remains pending before the Subcomisión de Acusaciones Constitucionales, the resolution of this case could impact public perception of his fitness for office and his ability to distance himself from the legal controversies surrounding his former political allies.
Future Implications
The constitutional accusation against Sánchez remains in the Subcomisión de Acusaciones Constitucionales. Sources indicate that the case may be analyzed in an upcoming session. Meanwhile, Sánchez faces ongoing scrutiny regarding his past ties to figures like Antauro Humala. While Humala has claimed that Sánchez offered him a cabinet position during the first round of the campaign, the candidate has avoided direct confrontation on this issue, maintaining that Humala is merely a supporter.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary legal charge against Roberto Sánchez?
He faces a constitutional accusation for the alleged crime of “incompatible negotiation,” involving the improper hiring of an advisor during his time as Minister of Foreign Trade and Tourism.
Was Roberto Sánchez convicted of rebellion?
No. While he was included in an investigation regarding rebellion, the Supreme Court ruled that his actions did not fit the legal definition of that crime and excluded him from that specific process.
What is the current status of the constitutional accusation?
The case has been with the Subcomisión de Acusaciones Constitucionales for over a year and has seen delays in processing under different committee presidencies. It may be addressed in an upcoming session.
How will these ongoing legal and political challenges influence the electorate’s decision in the upcoming vote?
