Full Room The Constitutional Court abolished the 1300-week premium requirement for women to receive an old-age pension.
(
President Gustavo Petro underlined the decision on Twitter and said, “I think the Constitutional Court is an excellent decision making pension reform even more necessary to finance this great achievement of working women.”
The Full Chamber of the Constitutional Court examined an allegation against part of Article 9 of Law no. 797 of 2003, amending Article 100 of 1993.
According to the lawsuit filed by Diego López, this norm ignored the right of women to obtain special protection in the field of social security.to provide them with material equality in access to old-age pensions.
(Read: Prosecutor Cabello gambles in the Council of State: they review the case against the election)
In short, the case said, given that women reach retirement age at 57 and men at 63, this law means a disproportionate and unfair burden for women because they have to earn the same weeks as men but five years less.
“The current law does not take women into account because of their important role as mothers, including childbirth, caring for minors and housework. For months, years, their labor ties are constantly being cut and therefore their contribution to the pension system is lower, which means that women translate into lower and unfair pensions than men.
With the presentation of the prosecutor Juan Carlos CortesThe General Assembly emphasized the inequalities that women are exposed to in social protection and insurance in old age.
He also analyzed the measures taken at the national and international level to bridge the gap between In this scenario, women and men said that while progress was made to reduce inequalities, they were insufficient.in particular, to guarantee conditions of autonomy for women, especially for older adults.
(Read: Court assures single-use plastic ban will take effect in two years)
“Elements such as informality in the workplace, discrimination and the invisibility of unpaid work in the care economy, This situation, which is predominantly performed by women, causes a structural deficiency that prevents adequate conditions of material justice for the victims.‘ said the court.
The General Assembly noted that the retirement age difference traditionally enforced by the legal regime in the country is insufficient to deepen the exercise of constitutional authority today. gender based discrimination it is even disabled by demanding the additive density demanded from men in a shorter time than women.
“As the right to social security is one of the fundamental means of ensuring dignity, justice and solidarity, pension protection should be progressively implemented under conditions of equality that eliminate all direct or indirect discrimination between men and women,” the court said. release.
(Read: Armando Benedetti: What happens to your transactions after you leave the embassy?)
Thus, the General Assembly said: Although the law may seem neutral, it is not actually.“because it creates a situation of legal indirect discrimination for women that must be overcome.”
“In order for women to access an old-age pension, they must accredit the same 1,300-week contribution as men, regardless of the barriers and difficulties they face in entering and staying in the labor market, and taking care of the home. adds a judgment statement, as well as those that intensify when they reach adulthood.
And, proceeding from a strict equality judgment, the Chamber proved that the norm had a disproportionate effect on women’s rights in its interaction with the existing pension system, although it sought to improve the financial conditions of the average premium regime. especially in the need to guarantee their autonomy and economic independence in old age.
(Read: Arguments in the debate over the alleged persecution of the Historical Covenant)
According to the room, The law, which sets the retirement age at 57 for women and 63 for men, treats men and women alike, although each group faces different conditions. It is seen that a structural discrimination that affects them in the field of employment and social security has not been overcome.
In other words, the Court said, “The measure, although effective and necessary to guarantee the principle of financial sustainability of the pension system, is not to realize the principles of universality and progress. on women’s access to old-age pensions”.
She warned that the measure resulted in a disproportionate sacrifice of women’s rights to human dignity, equality, social security, retirement, minimum rights of life and special protection and social security at work.
The General Assembly said it was up to Congress to define a regime that, in coordination with the National Government, guarantees effective access by women, particularly heads of families, to the right to an old-age pension on fair terms. this contributes to closing the historical gender gap.
In response to the pension system’s need to meet the principle of financial sustainability, It was determined that the effects of the decision will apply from 1 January 2026..
(Read: Judge Lombana’s controversial terms against prosecutor Jaimes for Benedetti case)
The Court held that if the regime in question was not adopted by that date, the minimum number of contributions required for women to receive an old-age pension in the medium premium regime would be reduced by 50 weeks until 2026, and that from 1 January 2027 it would be reduced by 25 weeks each year until reaching 1,000 weeks.
The General Assembly urged Congress and the Executive to adopt policies and programs that complement public pension policy that contribute to bridging the gender gap.particularly in relation to the recognition of the care economy and the need to socially protect those who practice it.
This decision was taken by a 6-3 vote. Cristina Pardo Schlesinger and judges Alejandro Linares Cantillo and Antonio José Lizarazo Ocampo saved their vote.
justicia@eltiempo.com
On Twitter: @JusticiaET
Source: Exame
