With a decision unprecedented in its 31-year history, The Plenary Session of the Constitutional Court decided that it could suspend the ongoing laws as an exceptional measure.And It examines the cases brought against this rule in depth and thus prevents the further development of activities that may be unconstitutional.
(Read: This was the Government’s turn before the Court on Opposition and full peace)
The decision announced by EL TIEMPO was taken with 9-0 votes.
(Read: State Council suspends decree on Petro’s service arrangement)
This is a power that is not explicitly enumerated in the Political Constitution regarding actions that the administrative judiciary clearly has, but which the Constitutional Court has decided in the past could not do.
Now, with a change of jurisprudence, heThe General Assembly anticipated that this would be possible, exceptionally, in cases where there is a rule that is clearly unconstitutional, which would have irreparable effects if the decision of the Constitutional Court, which had rendered it ultimately ineffective and harmless, is not suspended. and has no real effect.
(Read: Aníbal Gaviria: Court refuses to set aside the case and the case against you will continue)
“In exceptional cases, when faced with a rule that is clearly or explicitly incompatible with the Constitution, which may have irreparable consequences or which may lead to evasion of constitutional review, the effects of the Constitution, exceptionally, of the Court. the object of inspection act”, said the Court.
The Supreme Court, the requirements for cases where a rule can be suspended, “The provision, the necessity, effectiveness and proportionality of the measure, which are incompatible with the Constitution and have irreparable consequences; and the ineffectiveness of other mechanisms for the maintenance and effectiveness of the constitutional order”.
The measure must be taken by the General Assembly by majority, at the request of any magistrate and in the order of which it shall determine its scope and duration.
This was decided by the Court with the presentation of the Magistrate. Jorge Enrique IbanezThe ‘Clan del Golfo’ or ‘Pachenca’ who initially proposed to the General Assembly to partially suspend the ‘total peace’ Act, particularly the article of that law authorizing the Government to contact or negotiate with high-impact criminal groups.
EL TIEMPO found, inter alia, that this position did not receive the necessary acceptance in the Plenary Session, as the respondent clause for the judges was not manifestly unconstitutional, and therefore ultimately chose not to issue this suspension, and the definition of the issue will be made. will be given in the final decision.
(Read: Prison crisis: Court to oversee Bogota Police stations)
LWhat it did was declare a national urgency for this case, which means that once the draft resolution is ready, it will take priority over the other cases on the discussion list.
Judge Natalia Ángel Cabo and Judge Antonio José Lizarazo clarified their votes by stating that the request for a temporary suspension of the “total peace” law should be rejected for different reasons.
In his view, the Court’s position leaves many open questions and doubts about the opportunity to adopt this case-law position, the reasons for the Constitutional Court’s power to adopt such precautionary mechanisms, and the procedural moment and scope it can decide on.
judge While accepting that the court can apply interim injunctions, it keeps its distance, considering that the reasons stated in the decree are not sound and are based on a necessary but insufficient criterion, It’s like defending the supremacy of the constitution.
“The implied requirements for implementing such measures are not strict or demanding, because they are not instrumental in order to be truly exceptional. It is not known whether it was before or after citizen participation, which casts doubt on the democratic legitimacy of such decisions,” he said.
The only recent precedent is the reform passed by Congress in the middle of the 2022 election campaign that paralyzed the Guarantees Act, which allowed contracts to continue to be made that would not normally be possible in the election contest. . Although it was suggested at the time that this rule be suspended because it was an obvious ‘monkey’, there was no majority in the Court.
(Read: Employee holidays should be unconditional: Court)
This supreme court smashed this reform in a decision with retroactive effects, ordering the annulment of all signed contracts, but which came too late for some of the agreements that succeeded.
In that sense now The General Assembly will try to reconsider such cases where there is a clearly unconstitutional rule. and thus avoids acts contrary to the Constitution.
(Read: Litigation aimed at protecting industrial cargo from a maritime accident)
This decision will need to be considered by both the Congress of the Republic and the current Government when handling initiatives or reforms such as Health, where there is a wide debate whether it is law-in-law or ordinary law. one among others.
I am Bret Jackson, a professional journalist and author for Gadget Onus, where I specialize in writing about the gaming industry. With over 6 years of experience in my field, I have built up an extensive portfolio that ranges from reviews to interviews with top figures within the industry. My work has been featured on various news sites, providing readers with insightful analysis regarding the current state of gaming culture.