|  ElCiudadano.cl |  Noticias

El Ciudadano

Original article: Collipulli y Angol: Cuando falla la asesoría jurídica, falla el municipio… y paga el ciudadano

In municipalities, errors are far from abstract. They do not simply linger in internal reports or evaporate in technical documents. Instead, they translate into misallocated public resources, unchecked decisions, and citizens left waiting for responses that often never come.

What is happening in Collipulli and Angol, located in the La Araucanía Region, is not an isolated incident. It serves as a clear indicator of how the application of law is functioning—or failing—in local public management.

Recent findings from the Comptroller General of the Republic reveal a recurring pattern. The issue is not the absence of regulations or legal tools. The real problem lies in their application. When application fails, it does not just undermine a single decision; it fractures the very structure of administrative oversight.

In Collipulli, the situation arose from a decision that initially seemed reasonable. The Comptroller chose not to proceed with administrative investigations regarding workplace harassment complaints, arguing that the incidents were already being adjudicated in court. This rationale was the basis for Official Letter N° E433107 of 2023 from the Regional Comptroller of La Araucanía, which opted not to take action.

However, this reasoning was later corrected by Official Letter N° OF29349/2026 from the Comptroller General of the Republic.

The implication is clear: judicial proceedings and administrative actions can coexist. Thus, the Comptroller re-evaluated the earlier letter and ordered an administrative inquiry to clarify the events and ascertain responsibilities, including those of the mayor and involved officials.

Yet, the ruling does more than rectify an oversight. It unveils a deeper issue: the operational efficacy of the oversight system. Unlike other public officials, the mayor cannot be directly sanctioned by another administrative authority. The Comptroller can conduct investigations, but if accountability is established, it must be referred to the municipal council per Article 51 of law N° 18.695, which is the competent body to impose measures such as potential removal.

This creates a more complex system of indirect control, which relies on a chain of institutional decisions to operate effectively. When any link in that chain fails, oversight does not activate in time. This is precisely what happened in Collipulli.

The Angol case illustrates the same issue from a different angle. Here, the problem lies not in neglecting to investigate but in misapplying the law in specific decisions.

The Comptroller, through Special Investigation Final Report N° 451 of 2025 from the Regional Comptroller of La Araucanía, submitted via Official Letter N° OF41768/2026, found that more than 54 million pesos were paid to the Director of the Municipal Health Department while he was under total house arrest during a criminal trial that ultimately resulted in his conviction.

The rule was unambiguous. The Comptroller’s administrative jurisprudence has consistently stated that an official subjected to a measure preventing them from performing their duties is not entitled to a salary, as it pertains to an absence attributable to their situation. Yet, these criteria were overlooked.

But there is an even graver issue. The report itself notes that the legal advisor was explicitly consulted and failed to apply the established jurisprudence, neglecting to consider the guideline contained in ruling N° E292783 of 2022, which already addressed the relationship between precautionary measures and the exercise of public functions.

This is significant. According to Articles 5°, 6°, and 9° of law N° 10.336, Comptroller rulings are mandatory for the administration. Failure to apply them can lead to accountability. In other words, there were no missing regulations, precedents, or rulings. The failure was in their application. When legal interpretation falters, public decisions are compromised.

Moreover, there is an even more visible structural problem: the lack of effective internal controls. There were no clear protocols to address cases of officials undergoing judicial processes. There were no monitoring mechanisms in place. No systems to alert against the risk of improper payments. Decisions were made on a case-by-case basis, depending on the available guideline. And that guideline failed.

However, there is a point at which the problem transcends technicalities and becomes institutional. A recent fact clearly illustrates this.

According to the preparatory hearing record from the Family Court of Pucón dated June 12, 2026, conducted online from 10:04 to 10:32 AM, the Director of Community Development, dentist Carlos Matus Godoy, appeared as a respondent in a domestic violence case brought forth by his partner, the mother of his child, being represented by the municipal legal advisor, who also serves as the interim municipal secretary and notary, lawyer Jairo González González.

This situation is particularly sensitive. Not only due to the severity of the allegations but also due to what it reveals: that the individual responsible for ensuring the legality of administrative actions, advising the authority, and certifying the validity of institutional decisions can simultaneously intervene in personal interests within the same municipal environment.

The Inevitable Question Arises: Who Controls the Controller?

When the roles of interpreting legality, advising decision-making, and providing public certification are concentrated in one individual, internal controls become ineffective.

Additionally, when that same person acts in private matters related to the institutional context, the boundary between the public and the private becomes blurred. The issue transitions from administrative to a matter of integrity.

Adding to all of this is a tension that runs through both cases. In the face of serious incidents—unjustified payments, evident legal errors, and control mechanism failures—consequences are not always immediate or proportional. When this occurs, a particularly dangerous perception emerges: that the rules are not applied equally to everyone.

This perception erodes something fundamental: Trust.

Because ultimately, these cases do not remain in files or rulings. Their effects are felt by the citizenry. When that happens, it is not just an investigation or a ruling that fails. It is the municipality itself that fails.

La entrada Collipulli and Angol: When Legal Advisory Fails, Municipalities Fail… and Citizens Pay the Price se publicó primero en El Ciudadano.