The government and its dialogue-oriented allies moved the Private Property Inviolability Bill forward in the Senate after withdrawing the chapter that changed the rural land regime. Voting was expected after midnight because of the number of speakers and disputes over several articles. The administration approached the decision with a narrow majority and particular uncertainty surrounding amendments to the Fire Management Law.
Agustín Coto, chair of the Constitutional Affairs Committee and the government's reporting member, formally announced the removal of the foreign-ownership section on the floor. The chapter had lost support among moderate opposition senators after weeks of political and social pressure. Without it, the debate shifted to accelerated evictions, new limits on state expropriations and the use of productive land affected by fires.
The eviction chapter requires urban and rural proceedings to follow a summary process. It allows an owner to request immediate restitution from intruders or precarious occupants after litigation has been joined and sets a ten-business-day notice to vacate a home for unpaid rent. Following negotiations with moderate blocs, the bill added mandatory participation by protection agencies when children or people with disabilities are involved, plus up to ten days to seek an alternative housing solution.
The proposal also tightens expropriation rules. A public-interest declaration must be interpreted restrictively, identify the objective precisely and demonstrate that the measure is suitable, necessary and proportionate. Compensation is based on market value and direct damage; lost profits are capped at 30% of consequential damage unless a greater loss is reliably proven. Amounts are adjusted by the consumer price index plus interest, while temporary occupation is limited to 90 days with one equal extension in serious circumstances.
Another chapter extends the ten-year rural title-regularisation mechanism of the so-called Pierri Law to family farmers. For fire-affected land, the text removes restrictions on the use or sale of grasslands and productive properties but retains the ban on changing the use and purpose of native forests and forest reserves. That distinction drove part of the debate, as the government and opposition argued over whether the reform protects production or weakens preventive tools.
The Peronist bloc tried to send the bill back to committee, but the motion failed by 38 votes to 31. Outside Congress, a protest against the law ended in incidents after many participants had already dispersed. The outcome therefore depended on chapter-by-chapter votes: dropping the land provisions prevented the entire bill from collapsing, but it did not resolve the objections concerning housing, expropriation and fire policy that remained through the final stage of the session.
