court did find, however, that the properties currently being rented or loaned in usufruct could be attached.285 108. Despite having issued mayoral executive order 2,115, the mayor did not allocate funds for payment of the debt in the 2001 and 2002 budgets, so the plaintiffs lodged a motion with the Court of First Instance of Vallenar to challenge the legality of the mayoral order that had not included the debt in the 2002 budget. The Copiapó Court of Appeals issued an order on July 16, 2002, admitting the claim of illegal action, and ordered the mayor to “add to the budget for 2002 and for subsequent years as necessary, a line item for ‘payment of final judgments’ to cover the debt recognized in the labor decision Docket 4,443 […].”286 109. When the municipality still failed to meet its debt payments, on August 9, 2002, the plaintiffs petitioned for an arrest warrant against the mayor.287 The court admonished the municipality on August 21, 2002, and ordered it to report on measures taken to pay the debt.288 At the same time, the municipality lodged an ancillary motion asking that the procedure be abandoned,289 but this motion was denied by the court on August 27, 2002.290 The court issued an order on December 2, 2002 to enforce the admonition, and ordered the arrest of the mayor of Vallenar.291 The municipality submitted a report on a date uncertain, describing the measures it had taken to pay the debt, including the possibility of obtaining financing via the leaseback system, and asked that the arrest warrant be withdrawn,292 but the court denied this request.293 The mayor filed a motion for constitutional relief, and the Copiapó Court of Appeals, while denying the motion, nevertheless reduced the term of arrest to two weeks, which it considered reasonable.294 Meanwhile, the organic constitutional law for municipalities was amended by publication on December 14, 2002, clarifying that the possibility of arrest provided in Article 238 of the Civil Procedural Code could apply only to the mayor under whose term in office the debt giving rise to the trial had been incurred (supra para. 51). The mayor of Vallenar therefore filed a brief on December 14, 2002, petitioning the court to lift the arrest warrant.295 The Supreme Court, however, in an order issued on December 16, 2002, upheld the order of the Copiapó Court of Appeals.296 285 Cf. Order by the Copiapó Court of Appeals, December 29, 2000 (evidence file, folios 12547 to 12549). 286 Order by the Copiapó Court of Appeals, July 16, 2002 (evidence file, folio 12997). 287 Cf. Brief filed by Rafael Cortés Guzmán on behalf of the plaintiffs before the Court of First Instance of Vallenar, August 9, 2002 (evidence file, folios 13018 to 13020). 288 Cf. Order by the Court of First Instance of Vallenar, August 21, 2002 (evidence file, folio 13022). 289 Cf. Brief filed by Iván Mascareña Santana on behalf of the municipality before the Court of First Instance of Vallenar, August 19, 2002 (evidence file, folios 13035 to 13038). 290 Cf. Order by the Court of First Instance of Vallenar, August 27, 2002 (evidence file, folios 13048 and 13049). 291 Cf. Order by the Court of First Instance of Vallenar, December 2, 2002 (evidence file, folio 13195). 292 Cf. Brief filed by Celica Medina Tapia on behalf of the municipality of Vallenar before the Court of First Instance of Vallenar, on a date uncertain (evidence file, folios 13197 to 13212). 293 Cf. Order by the Court of First Instance of Vallenar, December 3, 2002 (evidence file, folio 13214). 294 Cf. Order by the Copiapó Court of Appeals, December 6, 2002 (evidence file, folios 13218 to 13222). 295 Cf. Brief filed by the mayor of Vallenar before the Court of First Instance of Vallenar, December 14, 2002 (evidence file, folios 13283 to 13286). 296 Cf. Order by the Supreme Court, December 16, 2002 (evidence file, folio 13295)). 39