On July 29, 2020, the Inspection Department of the Labor Directorate issued Notice No. 663, by which this service issues internal instructions on inspection matters. This document is very useful to know the aspects that will be subject to revision in an eventual inspection.

In general terms, Circular No. 063 emphasizes the minimum mentions, conditions, requirements and the most relevant considerations that the agreement regulating distance work must contain and that would be analyzed in the framework of an inspection.

With respect to health and safety conditions in the workplace, the Ministry of Labor and Social Welfare issued Regulation No. 18, detailing the specific safety conditions to which teleworkers or remote workers must be exposed, which will enter into force on October 1, 2020. As indicated in Notice No. 063, the following aspects will be subject to inspection in general terms:

i) Work that cannot be carried out by telecommuting.

ii) Hazard identification and risk assessment matrix.

iii) Safety and health work programme.

iv) Priority of preventive and corrective measures

v) Obligation to inform and train

vi) Regular training of workers.

vii) Equipment and elements of personal protection

viii) Internal regulations.

ix) Compliance with the measures prescribed by the managing entity.

The Notice indicates that since audits by the Labor Department must be conducted in the place where the teleworker or remote worker is providing the services (outside the Company’s facilities), the inspection visit to such places will be limited only to verification of the health and safety conditions of the work in which the services are provided, as long as there is authorization from the worker. The above, in the absence of general labor documentation and the representative of the latter in the place.

We attach Notice N°063, which contains an attached document called “Annex with Health and Safety Checklist – Telework and Distance Work”.

On June 9, 2020, a draft law was introduced that relaxes the rules on access to non-voluntary medical licenses for patents and utility models, medicines, vaccines and medical technologies necessary for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of diseases, and establishes a special procedure for this purpose, in a context of health alert, epidemic or pandemic.  In particular, the Project proposes, among other things, the following:

A. Replace the current procedure for the application for voluntary medical leave with a short and summary one.

B. Within the procedure, it is determined that notification of the application shall be made through the publication, in a newspaper with national circulation and in the Official Gazette, of an extract thereof authorized by the National Director of the National Institute of Industrial Property (INAPI).

C. Any appeals against the ruling on the origin of non-voluntary licenses, and any incidents, shall be granted only in the form of a refund.

D. A percentage of the royalties payable under non-voluntary licenses shall be set at 5% of the retail price of the licensed product or process.

E. Article 91 b) of the Industrial Property Law is expressly applied, in the sense that the protection indicated on test data or other undisclosed data will not apply, thus allowing the use of those already submitted to the Institute of Public Health (ISP).

F. In the event that the applicant for the non-voluntary license is a public service or other entity governed by public law, the latter may import, manufacture and distribute the subject matter of the application, as from the date on which the administrative act providing for it is issued.

G. The liability of applicants who, through ignorance of the existence of a patent concerned or by acting in good faith, commit an infringement of the Industrial Property Law shall be limited.

The bill is currently in its first constitutional stage in the Chamber of Deputies and has been submitted to the Supreme Court for analysis, which, by means of Official Letter No. 137/2020 of 23 July 2020, issued the corresponding report, setting out the following comments:

– It considers it necessary to specify the context of the health alert, pandemic or epidemic, i.e. what administrative acts may determine such states; and to set the parameters establishing their duration.

– It considers that complaints against the administrative decision of INAPI should be lodged with the Intellectual Property Court, given its technical and special nature. In this case, in order to keep the speed in its knowledge, it determines that certain characteristics of the claim must be kept, but with more limited times.

– Without prejudice to the above, it states that it is necessary to maintain the final control by means of an appeal in cassation of the decisions of the referred Court.

– On the other hand, it notices the omissions of essential elements of the proposed complaint procedure, stating that it should be similar to the complaint of municipal illegality of Law No. 18.695, Constitutional Organic Law of Municipalities, but with shorter periods of time.

– Finally, it states that the nature of the claim should be that of an action for nullity, and not of full jurisdiction, with express mention in the Project, in order to determine a procedure to rectify the defects detected.

On 27 July 2020, Law No. 21,247 was published in the Official Gazette, establishing benefits for parents who are taking post-natal parental leave and for caregivers of children born after 2013.

In particular, the bill provides for the following:

1. The law establishes that workers who are making use of their post-natal parental leave and whose term occurs during the state of constitutional emergency of catastrophe shall be entitled to preventive parental leave due to Covid-19 disease.

This medical leave will be available to workers whose permission has ended as of March 18, 2020 and before the entry into force of this law.

The permission shall be extended for 30 days, which may be renewed a maximum of two times, for the same period. If both parents have taken postnatal leave, either of them, at the mother’s choice, may take this preventive medical leave.

2. Workers who take preventive medical leave shall be entitled to an extension of the jurisdiction referred to in article 201 of the Labour Code. The period of extension shall be equivalent to the period of preventive medical leave actually used, and shall apply immediately after the end of the aforementioned period of jurisdiction.

3. The law provides that while the operation of educational establishments, kindergartens and nurseries, which the respective child would attend, remains suspended, workers affiliated to the unemployment insurance of Law No. 19.728, who have the personal care of one or more children born as of 2013, shall have the right to suspend the effects of the employment contract for care purposes, provided that the worker meets the requirements for access to the benefits established in Title I of Law No. 21.227.

4. This amendment also establishes that while the operation of educational establishments, kindergartens and nurseries, which the child attends, remains suspended, the employer may not invoke the cause for termination of the employment contract established in article 160, paragraph 3, of the Labour Code, in respect of workers whose contracts are not temporarily suspended, provided that the cause for their non-attendance is due to the care of the child born after 2013, and that they have no other alternative. This circumstance must be communicated to the employer as soon as the impediment arises, and accredited to the employer within two working days following the respective non-attendance.

5.   This Act states that the parental preventive medical leave referred to in Title I of this Act shall expire by the sole ministry of law on the following grounds, whichever occurs first: (i) On the expiry of the state of constitutional emergency; (ii) On the expiry of the term of this Act; (iii) In the event of the death of the child which caused the preventive medical leave.

On June 26, 2020, the Executive Directorate of the Environmental Assessment Service (“SEA”) issued Exempt Resolution No. 202099101455, which extends the suspension of the deadlines, provided for under Exempt Resolutions No. 20209910194, No. 202099101137, No. 202099101326, No. 202099101401, and N° 202099101430, of the same address, until July 31, 2020, inclusive, all those procedures of the Environmental Impact Assessment System (“SEIA”) processed before the Executive Directorate and Regional Directorates of the Environmental Assessment Service that contemplate Citizen Participation.

Specifically, it is suspended:
The processing of environmental impact statements and studies (“EIS” and “EIA”) with public participation (“PAC”) in progress.

The processing of EISs with an environmental charge, in which the execution of a PAC process was decreed (Article 95 of the Regulations of the Environmental Impact Assessment System, approved by D.S. No. 40/2013 of the Ministry of the Environment, “RSEIA”).

The processing of EISs and EIAs in which a new stage of CAP is opened (Article 92 and 96 of the RSEIA)

The processing of EIAs that enter the SEIA during the suspension period (March 20-31, 2020). They will be admitted for processing, but will be understood to be suspended from that date. The paper copies required for CAP requirements (Article 29 of the RSEIA), must be delivered once the evaluation deadlines are reactivated.

The processing of EISs and EIAs in which meetings must be held with human groups belonging to Indigenous Peoples (Article 86 of the RSEIA).

Bear in mind that, without prejudice to this, according to the second paragraph of recital No. 13 of the resolution, the Executive Director or Regional Director, as appropriate, may raise the measure with respect to a given project, in order to carry out public participation activities, by means of a well-founded resolution.

In addition, it extended the deadlines established in Exempt Resolutions No. 202099101160 and No. 202099101326, dated April 3 and 30 respectively, both from the Executive Directorate of the SEA, for the submission of Addenda, Complementary and Exceptional Addenda, as appropriate, with respect to the evaluation processes processed before the Executive Directorate and the Regional Directorates.

This suspension corresponds to:
Projects with Addenda that were to be submitted between June 30 and August 30, 2020 (both dates included), the deadline for submission is extended to August 31 of this year, without prejudice to the power of the proponent to enter the Addendum when it deems appropriate within that period of the year.

Projects with Addenda to be submitted after August 31, 2020, the deadline for submission established by any of these circumstances is maintained: (i) in the corresponding ICSARA; (ii) in a resolution extending the term of Articles 38 (paragraph 6), 41 (paragraph 3), 50 (paragraph 5) or 53 (paragraph 3) of the RSEIA; or (iii) by virtue of Exempt Resolution No. 202099101326, dated April 30, 2020, of the Executive Directorate of the SEA.

On July 1, 2020, the term established for the full application of Law No. 21.220 was fulfilled, which determines that from this date it will be necessary to formalize the teleworking system with all those workers with whom this modality of work was agreed before April 2020.

On January 21, 2020, the Senate approved the bill that aims to fully replace the current law on Real Estate Co-ownership (law number 19.537), currently in second constitutional procedure before the Chamber of Deputies (extreme urgency).

Although the bill maintains, to a large extent, the substance of the current law on Real Estate Co-ownership, it introduces some changes and innovations that we consider relevant to highlight, such as:

1. It defines the legal regime of real estate co-ownership, pointing out that it corresponds to a special form of dominion over the different units into which a building is divided and/or the land on which they coexist; in such a way that they grant their owners, simultaneously, an exclusive property right and a common property right with respect to the assets necessary for the existence, security, conservation and operation of the condominium.
2. It defines economic obligation as any payment in monetary terms to be made by the co-owner to cover ordinary common expenses, extraordinary common expenses or the common reserve fund, initial operating fund, fines, interests, insurance premiums or others, as determined by the respective co-ownership regulations.
3. It provides that the expenses for the payment of allowances and other expenses caused by the termination of the employment of the staff recruited shall be charged to the Common Reserve Fund and no longer to the common administrative expenses.
4. The status of skilled co-owners is granted to those who are up to date with the payment of all economic obligations to the condominium, and not just those who are up to date with the common expenses.
5. It makes clarifications that must be contemplated in the respective co-ownership regulations, for example, they may not contain rules that violate Law No. 20.609, which establishes measures against discrimination; the possession of pets and companion animals by co-owners, tenants or occupants of the condominium, within the respective units, may not be prohibited, without prejudice to the possibility of limiting the use of common spaces; and it must contain the behaviors that constitute violations of the co-ownership regulations and the respective applicable fines or penalties, and may be qualified according to their severity.
6. In the case of condominiums with more than 200 units for housing purposes, sub-administrations that do not exceed such amount shall be constituted, corresponding to the collective buildings or sectors in which the condominium may be divided.
7. Obligations are established that fall on the developer owner of the Condominium. Among them, it is stipulated the obligation of the individual or legal entity owner of the condominium to deliver a digital and material copy of the first co-ownership regulation to the buyer or seller prior to the execution of the contract. After the definitive reception, but before the occupation of the first co-owner, it must designate an administrator to whom it must deliver a folder with the co-ownership regulations, building permit with its plans, certificate of co-ownership, list of suppliers and subcontractors who participated in the construction, among others. This designation must be stated in a public deed.
8. The percentage of rights required to make agreements is reduced a: (i) Ordinary Meetings: absolute majority of those attending, (ii) Extraordinary Meetings: absolute majority of the rights of the condominium or (iii) Qualified Extraordinary Meetings: reinforced majority representing at least 66% of the rights, according to the type of meeting and the subject matter.
9. The position of sub-administrator is created, indicating the functions, attributions and integration of the latter.
10. A specific action for annulment of the co-ownership regulations is incorporated. Likewise, two matters are contemplated for the knowledge of the Regional Ministerial Secretariats of Housing and Urbanism: (i) claims against the administrators with the establishment of an administrative sanctioning regime, and (ii) claims against the Municipal Works Directorates for lack of pronouncement or refusals in the co-ownership application process.
11. The National Registry of Condominium Administrators is created, which is public, obligatory and free of charge, and will be managed by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, in which all individuals or legal entities that carry out the activity of condominium administrators must be registered.
12. It provides that those condominiums that were created before the law came into effect shall be provided with a co-ownership regulation. If such regulation has not been issued within one year from the publication of the law, the standard regulations to be sanctioned by the regulation shall be deemed applicable to the condominium.
13. It provides that once 66% of the units forming part of a new condominium have been sold (previously it was 75%), the first administrator must call an extraordinary meeting, so that the co-owners may decide on a series of matters.
14. The law shall apply, as soon as it is published, to communities of co-owners under Law No. 19.537, and the co-ownership regulations must be brought into line with its provisions within one year.
15. Finally, it provides that the regulations of the law and those of the National Registry of Condominium Administrators must be issued within twelve months, as from the publication of the law, and must be submitted to public consultation, for a period of not less than thirty days.

We hereby inform you that, given that this is a draft law in process, some modifications could be made to this draft law.

On June 25, 2020, Exempt Resolution No. 1042, of June 23, 2020, of the National Service of Geology and Mining (“SERNAGEOMIN”) was published, approving the General Conditions of the Guarantee Insurance Policy POL120200104, for the purpose of being considered as a financial instrument A.1 ), to ensure the state’s compliance with closure plans, in accordance with Article 52 of Law No. 20,551, on the closure of mining operations and facilities, as amended by Law No. 21.169, which recently came into force.

This resolution was issued in accordance with the amendment to the Regulations of the Mining Facilities and Closure Law, published on June 23, 2020, which, among the amendments made (section 8.- c), was that referred to “Guarantee Insurance Policies at First Request for the Closure of Mining Sites”, which required, on the part of the Service, an Exempt Resolution approving the General Conditions that have been incorporated into the Policy Deposit, which for this purpose is maintained by the Financial Market Commission (“CMF”).

In case decision number 8278-20-INA, dated June 18, 2020, the Constitutional Court (hereinafter the “TC”) declared the inapplicability of the first part of the first paragraph of Article 20 of the General Law of Urbanism and Construction (hereinafter the “LGUC”), which provides: “Article 20. Any infringement to the provisions of this law, its general ordinance and the instruments of territorial planning that are applied in the respective communes, will be sanctioned with a fine, to the benefit of the municipality, of not less than 0.5% and not more than 20% of the budget of the work, referred to in article 126 of the present law”.

The requirement of inapplicability was presented by Metlife Chile Seguros de Vida S.A., on the occasion of the application of a fine against it, in application of article 20 of the LGUC, amounting to Ch$573,929,196, decreed by the First Local Police Court of Florida, currently pending review before the Court of Appeals of Santiago, on appeal presented by Metlife.

Metlife based its request on the fact that the application of the first paragraph of article 20 of the LGUC was a violation of the constitutional guarantees of the administered party before the state’s punitive power, leaving the law to the judge’s discretion to set the fine, without determined criteria, in violation of the principle of legality; constituting, in addition, a sanction that violates the principle of proportionality, violating in the case of articles 1, 5, 6, 7, and 19 N°s 2, 3 and 26 of the Political Constitution.

In this regard, the Constitutional Court considered that the fine applied by the First Local Police Court of Florida, in the amount of $573,929,196, was contrary to the principle of proportionality set forth in the Constitution. Thus, the TC considered that the sanction lacked foundation since there was too broad a criterion in the first paragraph of Article 20 of the LGUC when determining the amount of the fine (between 0.5 and 20% of the budget of the work), the judge not providing sufficient justification and reasons that led him to award the punishment in the amount of $573. 929,196.- Furthermore, the TC pointed out that the unmotivated execution of the law (first paragraph of article 20 of the LGUC) found direct and immediate cause in the deficient redaction of the same law.

On June 22, 2020, the Labor Department issued ruling No. 1959/015, in which it determines whether it is appropriate to grant benefits in money or in kind to workers with suspended employment contracts, in accordance with the Employment Protection Law (Law No. 21.227).

According to the statements made by the Labor Department, it is legally appropriate that, during the period of suspension of the employment contract, whether it is due to an act of authority or a temporary suspension agreement, the employer grants the workers benefits in money or items, in order to supplement what they are entitled to receive from the Unemployment Insurance.

This is provided that the sole purpose of such benefits is to alleviate the consequences of the current situation and that it does not imply an obligation on the part of the workers to provide services while the employment contract is suspended.

On June 20, 2020, Law No. 21.240 was published in the Official Gazette, amending the Criminal Code to more severely punish non-compliance with isolation or other preventive measures ordered by the health authority, in the event of an epidemic or pandemic.

With regards to the amendments to the Criminal Code, to those crimes and simple offences against Public Health, we can point out that:

1. Increases the penalty for conduct sanctioned in the current article 318 of the Penal Code, which sanctions those who endanger public health by violating the rules of hygiene or health, duly published by the authority in times of disaster, epidemic or contagion. Specifically, it increases the penalty for this offence from minimum imprisonment (61 to 540 days) to minimum to medium imprisonment (up to 3 years and 1 day). In addition, the fine associated with its commission is increased, raising the upper bracket from 20 to 200 monthly tax units.

2. Likewise, Article 318 incorporates as a special aggravating circumstance, shows, celebrations or festivities prohibited by the health authority in times of disaster, pandemic or contagion.

3. In conjunction with this, a new article 318 bis is incorporated, punishing “… Anyone who, in time of a pandemic, epidemic or contagion, knowingly generates a risk of spreading pathological agents in violation of an order by the health authority, shall be punished by medium to maximum imprisonment and a fine of twenty-five to two hundred and fifty monthly tax units.

4. As the most important inclusion, we find the inclusion of another article, 318 ter, sanctioning “… Whoever, knowingly and having authority to dispose of the work of a subordinate, orders him/her to go to the place of performance of his/her duties when this is different from his domicile or residence, and the worker is in quarantine or obligatory sanitary isolation decreed by the health authority… The penalty consists of imprisonment for a minimum to medium term (up to three years and one day) and a fine of between 10 and 200 monthly tax units for each worker who is ordered to attend.

It is important to note that, for a harmonious interpretation of this new criminal type, it should be understood that the rule does not apply to companies expressly exempted by the respective Instructions for Travel Permits, updated to June 19, 2020, as regards those general measures (territorial quarantines; sanitary cordons and/or curfew); but it does apply with respect to personal measures to all companies (persons confirmed with Covid-19, close contacts, persons coming from abroad, etc.).

With regard to the amendments to Law No. 20.393, which establishes the criminal liability of legal persons for the offences it indicates, we can point out that:

The new crime incorporated as Article 318 ter, has also been incorporated into the catalogue of Law No. 20.393, so that not only employers (natural persons) who commit the crime under the conditions indicated above will be liable, but also the company to which they belong, to the extent that this involves a benefit and the other requirements set out in Law No. 20.393 where corporate criminal liability is met.

On June 23, 2020, the Plenary of the Court of Appeals of Santiago, in its ruling on case No. 1276-2020, agreed to leave without effect the public deed dated April 8, 2020, entitled “Purchase and Sale at Auction and Probate Eleventh Civil Court of Santiago by Toro Muñoz Tamara Ignacia to Arteaga and Compañía Limitada”, that was authorized by the Notary Public of Santiago, Valeria Ronchera Flores, considering that the way the document was issued is contrary to the rules contained in the Organic Code of Courts.

In effect, the Court determined that the deed in question, authorized by Notary Public Valeria Ronchera Flores, and which was electronically signed by the parties, was granted in contrast to the provisions of Articles 405, 426 and 429 of the Organic Code of Courts, since the granting of such deed should have been made in material form.

The above is consistent with what was stated by the President of the National Association of Notaries, Conservators and Judicial Archivists of Chile, Mr. Mauricio Astudillo Pizarro, in an evacuation report to the Supreme Court, in the sense that the granting of a public deed is an act necessarily performed in person, with a handwritten signature, using fixed ink or indelible paste, therefore, in paper format. Consequently, a document granted in another manner, such as one in which one or more parties have signed with an advanced electronic signature, does not constitute a public deed. For his part, the Conservative of Real Estate of Santiago, Mr. Luis Alberto Maldonado Croquevielle, prior to the pronouncement of the Plenary of the Court of Appeals of Santiago, had refused to practice the required inscriptions in relation to the above mentioned deed, because it is considered that the solemnities for the granting of a public deed require -among others- the personal appearance of the grantors before the respective minister of public faith, who can only grant the instrument and incorporate it in his protocol, and that, in the event that the grantor cannot appear, the law allows him to do so through a representative specially empowered for that purpose.

On June 23, 2020, Supreme Decree No. 6 of January 30, 2020, of the Ministry of Mining, amending Supreme Decree No. 41 of November 22, 2012, of the same ministry, which approves the Regulations to the Law on the Closure of Mining Sites and Facilities (Law No. 20.551), was published in order to implement the amendments incorporated by Law No. 21.169, with respect to incorporating the guarantee insurance policies at first request issued by national insurance companies as instruments within category A.1 ) of Article 52 of Law No. 20.551, being these sufficient to guarantee compliance with the plans for the closure of mining sites and facilities.

When Law No. 21.169 came into force, all mining companies subject to the procedure of general application, which took advantage of the transitional regime of Law No. 20.551 (closure plans simply valued), must update their closure plans (without the need for an audit), so that they incorporate a risk assessment, in order to determine the measures, activities and works of closure and post-closure, in order to protect life, health and the environment. The above was already warned by Exempt Resolution No. 40 of January 10, 2020, of the National Service of Geology and Mining (“SERNAGEOMIN”), published on January 17, 2020.

On June 9, 2020, Law No. 21.236 (the “Law”) which regulates Financial Portability, was published on the 3rd of June, 2020 in the Official Gazette. Its purpose is to promote financial portability, facilitating people, micro and small businesses to change from one financial service provider to another, or from a current financial product or service to another contracted with the same provider, as they deem appropriate. This law will enter into force 90 days after its publication, that is, from September 8, 2020, applying both to financial products that are in force at the date of publication and to those that are contracted subsequently.

The Law indicates that financial portability applies to those people, natural or legal, who keep one or more financial products or services in force, and who have the status of consumer pursuant to Law No. 19.496 on the protection of consumer rights, or have the quality of micro or small companies according to Law No. 20.416, which sets special rules for smaller companies. In favor of these people, financial portability is established as a right, so any clause contrary to this right will be understood as not written.

In general terms, the portability process may be (i) with subrogation, where a new credit is entered into with a new supplier, to satisfy the obligations of a credit that is maintained with an initial supplier, producing the special subrogation of the credit, and subsisting the guarantees that guarantee this; or (ii) without subrogation, where when contracting new financial products or services with a new supplier, terminating those that the client initially maintained with the initial supplier, and terminating the guarantees that guaranteed such products or services. It is noted that the portability process may take place both between products and services provided by different providers, and between products or services provided by the same provider.

The Law establishes that this will be considered as a norm of protection for the rights of consumers, and Law N ° 19.496 will be applied supplementally. Likewise, for the purposes of the processing of personal data carried out under this law, the provisions of Law No. 19.628, on Protection of Private Life, must be complied with.

Lastly, it should be noted that article 22 of the Law establishes that within 45 days following the date of its publication, that is, no later than July 24, 2020, the Ministries of Finance and Economy, Development and Tourism, must dictate the regulation that regulates all the necessary aspects for its correct application.

On June 12, 2020, the new Instructions for Mobility Permits were published, issued by the Ministry of the Interior and Public Security and National Defense, which replaces the instructions accompanying Oficio No. 13,556, dated May 27, 2020, signed by the Ministers of the Interior and Public Security and National Defense. These instructions are effective as of Monday, June 15, 2020 at 5:00 a.m.

Firstly, all resolutions issued by the competent authority that have granted authorizations for the movement of persons carrying out any of the activities included in numeral 10 letter b) of chapter III. of the Office mentioned in the previous paragraph (those “Activities that, due to their nature, cannot be stopped and whose interruption generates an alteration for the functioning of the country, duly determined by the competent authority”), remain in full force.

Among the modifications introduced in these new instructions, we can highlight the following:

1. In the first chapter, a catalogue of definitions is presented so that users can understand each of the situations implemented by the Health Authority.

2. With respect to individual temporary permits (new Chapter II of the Instructions), the following modifications are made:

The contrast of information between the health authority’s register of active cases Covid-19 and the virtual commissary is included, so people within this register will not be able to apply for such permits.

The maximum number of permits per week is maintained (5), with the only exception of the permit relating to the departure of persons with autism spectrum disorder or other types of mental disability.

From these permits, the one relating to the change of address or moving is eliminated and a new one is incorporated, relating to the caregivers of the elderly and people with disabilities.

3. A chapter (III.) has been added to the new instructions, explaining the “Individual Authorization for Travel”, which emphasizes that it only applies to travel during curfew hours, and also to enter and leave through a cordon sanitaire. At this point, it only makes one change with respect to the Instructions on Safeguards of 23 March 2020, adding that in addition to the grounds for granting them, the grounds for medical treatment and funeral arrangements, there will also be the fact of requiring to move to a different place.

4. A change has been introduced regarding authorizations for cases of territorial quarantine (ex Chapter III. of the Instructions for Movement Permits of 27 May 2020), contemplating two situations: the “Collective Movement Permit” (Chapter V.); and the “Single Collective Permit” (Chapter VI.):

i. The first authorizes the mobility of persons, institutions and industries that carry out essential tasks established as such by the new instructions in the chapter already mentioned, and only authorize mobility for the fulfillment of their functions in the context of quarantine and also serve as a safeguard to carry out functions during curfew hours and to cross a sanitary cordon. They are therefore valid permits:

Credentials for health workers, civil servants and public officials, food and essential trade, emergencies, education and transportation; and others duly listed by the competent authority; and Identity card.

ii. The second enables the movement of personnel from institutions and industries that perform essential tasks established as such by the new instructions in the aforementioned chapter. This must be requested through the virtual commissary, attaching a nominated list of workers together with the e-mail address of each one of them. This information will be cross-referenced with the register of active cases of the Health Authority by Covid-19 and with the Internal Revenue Service, to corroborate the draft of the applicant company. The worker will receive in this mail the authorization of displacement with the individualization of name and schedule to perform their work, which will be valid for 7 days. This replaces the use of credentials for free mobility during the day, and the special authorization permit for the curfew, which must be obtained in order to be authorized to attend work in person. Therefore, they are valid permits for these cases:

1.The Single Collective Permit for workers in the public utility, security and press services sector; and

2. Identity card. 

On June 14, 2020, the Ministry of Finance and the expanded Finance Commission, made up of opposition parliamentarians and the government, presented a document summarizing the issues on which there is a framework of understanding in order to build an “Emergency Plan for the Protection of Family Income and the Economic and Employment Reactivation, in addition to a medium-term fiscal convergence framework”, with the aim of implementing measures to address the COVID 2019 Pandemic.

Among the measures, it is intended to implement a package of tax measures of a transitory, among which are:

1. Reduce by half the first category tax of the Pro-Small Business regime of the income tax law for the business years 2020, 2021 and 2022.
2. Extend the suspension of payment of PPMs by 3 months.
3. To carry out, exceptionally, a refund of the remaining VAT tax credit to Small Business that meet certain conditions of proper tax compliance.
4. Extend the instantaneous depreciation scheme to 100% until December 31, 2022.
5. For the year 2021, release the regional contribution of 1% to investment projects, where said amount will be contributed to the regions from the fiscal coffers.

The agreements contained in this document would be the subject of a future bill, which, in order to enter into force, must be previously discussed, approved, promulgated and published.