Regulations and financing: the arguments used by the ruling party and the opposition to challenge the legality of the Senate session

The government insists it will take Thursday's Senate session, where the pension and disability emergency bills were approved, to court. They raise regulatory and financing arguments, which the opposition counters . The courts will have the final say.

Regarding the regulations, they cite Article 32, which establishes the power and duty of the Speaker of the House to "convene ordinary, special, and extraordinary sessions," and Article 56, which establishes the conduct of parliamentary business—meetings between the Speaker of the House and the parliamentary bloc leaders—to organize the parliamentary agenda. In other words, they assert that "self-convening" does not exist as such and is therefore illegal.

Specifically, although Villarruel had held a meeting with the bloc leaders prior to the session on Tuesday, as reported by Clarín , the vice president told them that she would not call the meeting because there was no agreement on the agenda, but she confirmed that if they could secure a quorum to open the session on their own, she would come down to preside . That's what she did, until the barbs started coming from the Rosada (Catholic House), and then the order came for all the government officials to leave.

The opposition, on the other hand, points out that in the February preparatory session , the body unanimously set the days and times for regular sessions—Wednesdays and Thursdays at 2:00 p.m.—and that the chamber was already authorized to meet on those days . They also point out that Villarruel is not even a senator; she is the vice senator, a member of the Executive Branch, which as such must guarantee its functioning and cannot block the will of the body—which is sovereign—to hold sessions. They insist that Congress has institutional autonomy backed by its internal regulations and the Constitution, and that if the Executive Branch were to impede its functioning, the separation of powers would be violated.

This reading was acknowledged by Vice President Victoria Villarruel herself in her response to Patricia Bullrich: "Today's regular session was scheduled for the date and time of the annual preparatory session. As Vice President, I fulfill my institutional role, which implies presiding over the sessions whether I like it or not," Villarruel stated.

In the Senate, for their part, they grew tired of making jokes about Bullrich, who led Group A during the Kirchner era.

The other argument has to do with fiscal matters. The ruling party argued that the projects have no sources of funding. Milei said this before the session: "They have to explain where they're going to get the other expenses, what expenses they're going to cut to be able to fund this. If not, they're violating the Financial Administration Law. Therefore, if this were to reach the courts, the judges would hardly rule in favor of such a populist nonsense."

But the opposition argues that the texts do contain provisions establishing seven forms of financing. They propose that part of the SIDE funds—granted by decree—go to retirees; they propose nationalizing the funds of cooperative entities that collect through vehicle registrations; ending an income tax exemption for mutual guarantee companies; and allocating funds that the government "has saved since November of last year by reducing surcharges on interest on debt with the International Monetary Fund," among other points.

However, LLA points out that the funding sources indicated in the bills are insufficient to cover the full fiscal cost they would generate . "The level of irresponsibility is superlative. They vote for laws that have no funding, and the explanations for how they finance them DO NOT COVER even 15% of the cost. This is how they have been managing Argentina for the last 25 years: they spent unlimitedly and only generated poverty," declared the Speaker of the Chamber of Deputies, Martín Menem.