resolution dated January 21, 1997 null and void, and requested SUNAT “to comply with the final supreme order’s mandate within the terms established by law.”16 34. On August 18, 1997, the resolution dated April 8 was declared null and void17due to the fact that SUNAT was not served notice of the plea to nullify filed by the MEF State Attorney regarding the Resolution dated January 21, 199718. 35. On February 16, 1998, the First Temporary Corporate Court Specializing in Public Law declared the plea to nullify filed by the MEF against the resolution dated January 21, 1997 unfounded19. The First Court considered that “the Third Temporary Provision of Legislative Decree 673 contains two rules: one the one hand, it transfers [to MEF] the obligation to pay the pensions in question, and on the other hand, it establishes that they are adjusted, taking the remunerations paid [by MEF] as a reference point.”20 36. In view of the fact that the MEF appealed said resolution, on August 27, 1998, the Temporary Corporate Chamber Specializing in Public Law revoked the resolution dated February 16, 1998 and declared the resolution dated January 21, 1997 null and void21. The Chamber explained that “the request made [of the MEF] regarding compliance with the final resolution does not follow from the legal history, and consequently the legal process principle, and therefore, the plea to nullify is worthy of consideration.”22 37. On October 2, 1998, the First Temporary Corporate Court Specializing in Public Law issued a new resolution declaring that “the request submitted for the execution of the intended payment is inadmissible, even when the members of the petitioning association may be entitled to rights they can exercise as applicable.”23 The Court deemed it necessary for the members of ANCEJUB-SUNAT to “file individual administrative and/or jurisdictional proceedings as they see fit in order to settle the economic side of the case in question.”24 38. The ANCEJUB-SUNAT appealed said resolution on the grounds that: i) it violated constitutional and legal principles and provisions; ii) the judge disregarded the restorative and condemnatory nature of the judgments referring to guarantee actions; iii) the judgment enforcement in guarantee actions is regulated by procedural laws; and iv) final resolutions are to be executed within the process itself before the petition judge and not through an administrative procedure or through new judicial proceedings25. 16 Resolution issued by the Judge Specializing in Social Security Matters of Lima on April 8, 1997 (Attached to the petitioners’ writ dated October 3, 1998). 17 Resolution issued on August 18, 1997 (Attached to the petitioners’ writ dated October 3, 1998). 18 Resolution issued on August 18, 1997 (Attached to the petitioners’ writ dated October 3, 1998). Resolution issued by the First Temporary Corporate Court Specializing in Public Law on February 16, 1998 (Attached to the petitioners’ writ dated October 3, 1998). 19 20 Resolution issued by the First Temporary Corporate Court Specializing in Public Law on February 16, 1998 (Attached to the petitioners’ writ dated October 3, 1998). 21 Resolution issued by the Temporary Corporate Chamber Specializing in Public Law on August 27, 1998 (Attached to the petitioners’ writ dated October 3, 1998). 22 Resolution issued by the Temporary Corporate Chamber Specializing in Public Law on August 27, 1998 (Attached to the petitioners’ writ dated October 3, 1998). 23 Resolution issued by the First Temporary Corporate Court Specializing in Public Law on October 2, 1998 (Attached to the petitioners’ writ dated October 3, 1998). 24 Resolution issued by the First Temporary Corporate Court Specializing in Public Law on October 2, 1998 (Attached to the petitioners’ writ dated October 3, 1998). 25 Appeal filed by ANCEJUB-SUNAT on October 15, 1998 (Attached to the petitioners’ writ dated October 3, 1998). 6