18 “Law Decree 25876 was applied retroactively, and although the application of this public and necessary law oriented toward stabilizing the socio-economic situation of the State and eliminating the inflationary distortions that the automatic adjustment systems could cause was imperative, its effects cannot be allowed to damage the juridical structure of the Nation; therefore, as law that reiterates and clarifies Legislative Decree No. 757, a clarifying disposition’s validity cannot be retroactive to the date in which the law being clarified entered into force. This is because laws are valid only as of their material existence, that is, as of their publication, and not before.”52 Consequently, the Labor Court ordered SEDAPAL: “first, [...] to restore to the functionaries bringing the complaint [...] the amount by which their monthly remunerations were reduced starting in the month of December 1992; second, [...] to restore the fraction of the remunerations that was deducted and subtracted for the period of January to November 1992, and third, [...] to grant the functionaries bringing the complaint a raise in remaining remunerations on applying the salary scale to the increase of S/. 70.00 nuevos soles in the base salary in the scale structure - the unskilled laborer - as of the month 53 of July 1992.” 67. That lower court judgment was appealed by the company, but on September 30, 1996, the Second Labor Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima upheld it.54 Given this, on January 31, 1997, SEDAPAL submitted a cassation appeal that was resolved on July 21, 1999, by the Constitutional and Social Law Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice. The ruling granted the remedy and overturned the second instance order in the petitioners’ favor, taking into account the following reasoning: [It shall be] determined if Law Decree [25876] is applicable with regard to the clarifications it introduces to Legislative Decree [757] only as of its publication or if, on the contrary, at issue is an interpretive law that places conditions on the interpretation and application of [Decree 757] from the moment in which that decree was itself published. [In this regard,] the second of the two criteria mentioned “Has already been established by the Supreme Chamber repeatedly in its case law, which finds that the abolishment established by the Executive of all automatic systems for increasing remunerations established though collective bargaining agreements, as happens with the claimants through, in succession, Legislative Decree [757] and the Law Decrees [25541] and [25876], is found to be Constitutional and in keeping with the law. It has effect as of the entrance into force of the first of the laws cited.”55 68. Likewise, the Chamber of Constitutional and Social Law “[found] that the judgment [in favor of the alleged victims] erroneously interprets Law Decree [25876], restricting its effects despite its explicit text, leading to the granting of the [writ of] cassation.” 69. The second group of the remaining 48 alleged victims began another proceeding in which the reasoning expressed previously by the Supreme Court was used by a Lima 52 Judgment No. 227-95 of the 18th Labor Court of Lima, supra note 49, folio 81. 53 Thus SEDAPAL had to pay out the sum total of S/. 2,840,318.67 to the 185 functionaries bringing the complaint, plus the corresponding legal interest on executing the judgment. Judgment No. 227-95 of the 18th Labor Court of Lima, supra note 49, folio 82). 54 That Chamber found that it was only necessary to modify “the amount established for payment. Therefore [it] order[ed the company] to pay the 185 individuals bringing the complaint [...] the sum total of S/. 1,204,051.85 (one million, two hundred and four thousand, fifty one and 85/100 nuevos soles). In this respect, the Chamber found that the final amount had not been calculated correctly because it did not take into account “the CONADE directive No. 004-93 issued on February 17, 1993, providing for the implementation of a new remuneration structure for State companies [...] which raises the remunerations of personnel not subject to collective bargaining [...] for which reason the right protected cannot extend beyond that date.” Judgment of the Second Labor Chamber of Lima dated September 30, 1996 (Case file No. 3926-95-ID (S)) (case file of annexes to the application, tome I, annex 12, folios 109 to 113). 55 Judgment of the Chamber of Constitutional and Social Law of the Supreme Court of Justice of July 21, 1999 (case file of annexes to the application, tome I, annex 13, folio 117).