Is Chile about to undo advances made over the past two decades in military justice?

In 2005, in the case Palamara Iribarne v. Chile, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights criticized Chilean military Courts for being:

". . . made up of active-duty military members who are hierarchically subordinate to higher-ranked officers through the chain of command, that their designation does not depend on their professional skills and qualifications to exercise judicial functions, that they do not have sufficient guarantees that they will not be removed, and that they have not received the legal education required to sit as judges or serve as prosecutors. All this implies that said courts lack independence and impartiality." (Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of Palamara-Iribarne v. Chile, Judgment of November 22, 2005,  (Merits, Reparations, and Costs para.155). 

In 2010, President Sebastian Pinera, stated at the moment of sending the draft law which would modify the competence of military tribunals in Chile that[with this change we guarantee due process, equality before the law and the full compliance of international treaties.  Six years later, in 2016, the government of President Michelle Bachelet, following the path forged by her predecessor, incorporated a new modification, expressly establishing that no civilian victim or accused would be subject to military justice.

In recent weeks within the context of creating "general norms for the use of force for the personnel of the forces or order and public security and for the armed forces," a group of deputies in Congress's lower house attempted to incorporate language that states that in four specific circumstances (constitutional states of emergency, protection of border zones, protection of electoral and plebiscite actions and protection of critical infrastructure) crimes committed by members of the military in the exercise of their functions (Armed Forces and Carabineros in Chile)  will be heard by military tribunals, including when the victim is a civilian.

This language was declared inadmissible by the lower house of Congress, but led to the scenario in which a group of Senators have announced that they will intend to present this language again, but this time in the Senate.

Since this is considered a great step backwards for Chile it is hoped that rationality will prevail in the Senate when this bill comes up.