The defense team for former Minister of Public Works Arnoldo Wiens has stepped up its legal offensive in the Metrobús case, filing two simultaneous motions aimed at overturning rulings deemed detrimental to his procedural standing. The former minister, currently charged as a principal in the crimes of breach of trust and damage to public works, appealed the definitive dismissal of fellow former minister Ramón Jiménez Gaona and challenged two members of the Court of Appeals.
The legal strategy, led by attorneys Cecilia Pérez Rivas and Federico Huttemann, challenges Interlocutory Order No. 144, issued on May 29, 2026 by investigating judge Humberto Otazú (a judicial guarantees judge responsible for overseeing the investigation phase). Through that ruling, the magistrate ordered the definitive dismissal of Jiménez Gaona and Marta Regina Benítez Moríngo.
In Wiens' defense team's view, the decision oversteps the proper scope of a dismissal. Pérez Rivas argues that the judge not only severed the defendants from the case but drew conclusions about the origin and development of the project that, in her assessment, belong in the oral trial phase. The ruling states that the Metrobús was technically feasible, that there were no planning failures attributable to Jiménez Gaona's administration, and that primary responsibility for the project's failure lies with the contractor Mota-Engil.
The defense maintains that the ruling turns the lack of evidence gathered by the Public Prosecutor's Office against Jiménez Gaona into a definitive finding of innocence — an assessment that could only be made after a full adversarial oral trial. Furthermore, the decision would create a scenario of procedural inequality by using the severance of other defendants as a precedent that could strengthen the charges against Wiens.
In parallel, Huttemann filed a recusal motion against appellate judges Paublino Escobar Garay and Mario Camilo Torres Leguizamón, members of the Criminal Court of Appeals, Second Chamber. The motion is based on Interlocutory Order No. 58, issued on May 5, 2026, when both magistrates — with the dissent of José Waldir Servín — declared inadmissible an interlocutory ruling filed by Wiens' defense.
According to the defense, that ruling prevented the case from reaching the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, and the appellate judges assumed powers that belong to the highest court. The defense considers that this conduct has already been the subject of an unconstitutionality action.