-66- Article 1: Implement an immediate review of the payroll as well as all accounting documents in connection with salaries, social benefits, pensions and any other items related to the labor issues of the Municipalidad Metropolitana de Lima (Metropolitan Municipality of Lima) for the purpose of determining, in accordance with applicable statutory provisions, the amounts due as well as those that may have been paid in excess. Article 2: Establish, while the review provided for in Article 1 above is performed, provisional wage brackets, operative as of this month, the details of which are attached hereto as Appendix 01 […]. Article 4: Request the opinion of the Comptroller-General of Peru) on “memoranda of agreement” entered (Metropolitan Municipality of Lima) between 1988 and 1995 […].94 Contraloría General de la República (Office of the “covenants”, “contracts”, “agreements” and/or into by the Municipalidad Metropolitana de Lima and the SITRAMUN-LIMA and SITRAOMI unions 204(53) The Municipality of Lima implemented Article 2 of Mayoral Resolution No. 044-A-96 from January 1996 through October 1997.95 204(54) On April 15, 1996, the SITRAMUN-LIMA filed an amparo for legal protection against the Municipality of Lima, on behalf of the union members, requesting, inter alia, that Resolution No. 044-A-96 be found inapplicable on the grounds that its implementation entailed a reduction of 30% in their compensation, in complete disregard of the collective bargaining agreements providing for several increases in compensation, with the aggravating factor that the provisional wage brackets had not been published or notified.96 204(55) On December 10, 1997, the Tribunal Constitucional (Constitutional Court) found the amparo for legal protection “sustained in part” and “Article 2 of Mayoral Resolution No. 044-A-96 inapplicable to the members of the union insofar as it establishes wage brackets,” and ordered “the Mayor of the Municipality to pay the difference resulting from the reduction in pay, for the period effectively worked while such resolution had been implemented.”97 The Court based its decision on the following grounds: “pursuant to Law No. 26553, Article 15, whereby the 1996 Public Sector Budget is approved, the payroll may only be affected by the deductions prescribed by law or by court order, or as a result of an administrative loan, and other items agreed on by the civil servant or dismissed worker [,] and the reduction implemented by the Municipality of Lima at its discretion does not fall within any of these […,] especially if we consider that subsequent Public Sector Budget laws authorized Local Governments to make costof-living adjustment raises through collective bargaining processes.” 94 Cf. Lima Mayoral Resolution No. 044-A-96 of January 17, 1996 (file of appendixes to the application, appendix 33, folio 1707). 95 Cf. Lima Mayoral Resolutions No. 00681-99 of July 20, 1999, No. 00799-99 of August 26, 1999, No. 6257 and No. 6258 of May 17, 2000 (file of appendixes to the answer to the application, appendixes 31, 33, 35 and 36, folios 4331, 4338, 4344 and 4347). 96 Cf. Judgment rendered by the Tribunal Constitucional (Constitutional Court) on December 10, 1997 (file of appendixes to the application, appendix 33, folio 1721). 97 Cf. Judgment rendered by the Tribunal Constitucional (Constitutional Court) on December 10, 1997 (file of appendixes to the application, appendix 33, folio 1721).