The crisis began when President Vizcarra dissolved the Congress of Peru, citing a constitutional provision after its de facto rejection of a vote of confidence.

Efforts to reform the selection process for the Constitutional Court and combat corruption were blocked by Congress, particularly by the Popular Force party led by Keiko Fujimori.

Fujimori herself was arrested in October 2018 on charges of money laundering and corruption in connection with the Odebrecht scandal, a high-profile case involving bribery across Latin America.

Vizcarra and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights criticized Congress for blocking proposals to hold general elections while swiftly approving nominees to the Constitutional Court of Peru without conducting background checks.

[12] Ledesma revealed that a colleague had suggested she could retain her position on the Court if she voted in favor of releasing Keiko Fujimori, a politician facing corruption charges.

[12][2] Hours later on that day, and following Congress’s rejection of a proposal to advance general elections, the Vizcarra administration announced a motion of confidence related to the process for selecting Constitutional Court magistrates.

[14] President Martín Vizcarra stated that Prime Minister Salvador del Solar would formally present the motion of confidence, requesting that Congress approve amendments to the Organic Law of the Constitutional Court to reform magistrate selection procedures.

[15] On September 30, Prime Minister Del Solar and his cabinet convened at the Government Palace before proceeding to Congress to present the confidence matter and the proposed legal reforms.

[15] Upon arrival, Del Solar requested to deliver the bill immediately but was informed he would need to wait until 9:00 a.m. PET, the official opening time for document submissions.

[15] This schedule allowed Congress to proceed with the magistrate elections before addressing the matter of confidence, with Popular Force, APRA, Contigo, Acción Republicana, Cambio 21, and Alliance for Progress supporting this sequence.

Tensions arose when some lawmakers objected to proceeding with the election before addressing the matter of confidence that Prime Minister Salvador del Solar was set to present that afternoon.

"[16] Congressman Gilbert Violeta of the Contigo party criticized the motion of censure, accusing its supporters of seeking the “political and economic destruction of Peru.” He argued that the executive branch was infringing upon legislative autonomy and dared President Vizcarra to dissolve Congress if he intended to do so.

APRA Congressman Mauricio Mulder echoed these criticisms, claiming that the government sought to extend control over the Constitutional Court and other judicial bodies by blocking new appointments, and argued that the legislature should act swiftly to fill these roles.

[17] Session minutes document that Congressman Gino Costa of the Liberal Party requested to yield his speaking time to Prime Minister Salvador del Solar.

[17] Following some objection and off-microphone exchanges, Olaechea clarified that Del Solar’s address was a courtesy rather than a procedural obligation, stating, "You have ten minutes, Prime Minister, and then you have to leave.

[17] As part of his argument, Del Solar highlighted specific examples of the Court's influence on critical societal issues, explaining, “The Constitutional Court has not only resolved cases such as...the meritocracy criterion for teachers, affecting both educators and students’ rights; it has also deliberated on the rights of Quechua-speaking citizens to receive public services in their own language.”[17] Del Solar warned that proceeding with an opaque appointment process would exacerbate Peru’s ongoing “crisis of legitimacy,” an issue he had previously raised.

Why should the country see us as in a hurry?”[17] In closing, Del Solar formally presented a motion of confidence on behalf of the executive branch, contingent upon Congress implementing a transparent procedure for the Court appointments.

[18] Congress succeeded in securing the qualified majority of 87 votes required to elect one nominee, Gonzalo Ortiz de Zevallos Olaechea, to the Constitutional Court.

[20] Additionally, he pointed out procedural irregularities of Congress, such as attempts to exclude the Prime Minister from debates and opposition to judicial reforms designed to bolster transparency in the selection of the Constitutional Court.

Members of the Liberal Party, New Peru, Broad Front, and Unidos por la República left the congressional chamber, demonstrating support for the measure.

[citation needed] In contrast, the Fujimorist bloc, along with representatives from Apra, Contigo, Alianza para el Progreso, and Acción Popular, remained in the chamber, rejecting the dissolution.

Eloy Espinosa Saldaña, a magistrate of the Constitutional Court, noted that Article 114’s suspension mechanism had traditionally applied to cases of illness, casting doubt on its application to political disputes.

[21] Other legal scholars raised concerns regarding procedural fairness, asserting that Vizcarra’s right to due process and defense had not been adequately upheld in the suspension decision.

[27] The Organization of American States (OAS) issued a statement supporting Vizcarra’s call for elections, noting that the Constitutional Court could evaluate the legality of his actions.

[35] El País published an editorial asserting that President Vizcarra's dissolution of Congress was neither a coup nor unconstitutional but rather a "legal and perfectly legitimate solution.

[35] In a separate opinion piece, Jorge Eduardo Benavides stated that "almost thirty years after Fujimori dissolved Congress to launch his criminal organization, the boomerang he threw has been returned [to his political movement, Fujimorism].