Pinera said the legislation was unconstitutional since it implied a cost to the public purse that can only determined by the executive, and posed a “grave risk” to the future pensions of Chileans as well as offering another tax-free windfall to higher-income individuals who did not need it.

Read also Chile’s famed pensions system faces an existential crisis

“All authorities, and especially the president of the republic, have to be sensitive to the needs of citizens, and also responsible over the decisions they take and their future consequences,” the presidency said in a statement.

Read also Latin America’s leaders will have plenty of headaches

The bill’s supporters say it would help Chileans struggling to deal with the economic fallout from the coronavirus. They have criticized the government for an inadequate response.

The move to involve the country’s highest court is risky for the center-right Pinera government, already under fire for its aggressive handling of social protests over inequality that exploded last year and struggling to convince the electorate of its intention to fix the problems the protests raised. Pinera could refuse to sign the bill into law if it is approved by Congress, although that risks sparking public anger.

Pinera’s approval rating stands at 16%, according to pollsters Cadem, while Pamela Jiles, a leftist lawmaker representing an impoverished Santiago suburb who introduced the second withdrawal bill, is now touted as a possible candidate in next year’s presidential election with a 65% approval rating – the highest of any Chilean politician.

Read more @Reuters