DERECHO COLOMBIANO: CRITICA A LA REFORMA PLANTEADA POR EL GOBIERNO A LA RAMA JUDICIAL EN COLOMBIA

DERECHO COLOMBIANO: CRITICA A LA REFORMA PLANTEADA POR EL GOBIERNO A LA RAMA JUDICIAL EN COLOMBIA

CRITICISM RAISED BY THE GOVERNMENT REFORM THE JUDICIAL BRANCH IN COLOMBIA

in Colombia, the crisis that exists in the judicial branch more than 20 years ago, arrived today at a critical point that threatens the ideals and principles enshrined in the constitution of Colombia, 1991.This crisis is due to the lack of effective laws to the Colombian context and the budget deficit of the judiciary, but the proposed reform by the executive to ease this crisis from my point of view is inadequate and threatens the harmonium tripartite state which means that weakens the judiciary in relation to other powers that the executive and legislative branches.If we add the internal clash that exists in the high courts for any discrepancies, differences in methods of legal interpretation for each case and cut it proposes the reform of justice by giving the courts powers to investigate and judge its judges, take powers to the state council. Why? It is giving powers to the various courts to investigate an outage or other failure by certain what causes you to lose flexibility and harmony that should characterize justice as they wear out irrelevant issues, is to sharpen the issue of judiciary. This reform from my point of view will not ease the burden at this time are judges and magistrates as repression processes to international standards by the number of citizens, Colombia will need to bend your body and officials diseptatoris help them. And this measure would only be effective to achieve a balance in future cases that come to be settled to unlock the judiciary takes a few temporary judges would be dedicated to solving processes suppressed in the high courts in the reform of the judiciary not stated none of these approaches.

Another problem is that laws are a retrograde step and remained behind mammoth social state of law reform is necessary in most procedural codes and the shift to orality in all judicial can not wait.It should create the constitutional court to be such officials in constitutional law experts to serve the public 24 hours a day as in Mexico with the constitutional protection in our country which is known as the tutela.For legal certainty is necessary to unify the doctrine of the high courts and binding upon the judges of lower rank and that made this process cases that come to the high court appeal or where there would be some loophole but similar to the judge of inferior rank and know how should issue its ruling, the issue is who should make that work? The justice reform that raises fundamental rights is the constitutional court to support this notion and the constitutional court to be the natural interpreter of the Constitution has a higher status than other courts on fundamental rights, be the law of laws, constitution and head of the Colombian jurisdiction enjoys his interpreter in the same category, other courts disagree with this statement of the justice reform Why? They believe that each court should be natural to settle these statements in case of failure of protection against judicial decisions, it would violate the principle of institutional autonomy.For this conflict poses the solution is the creation of constitutional jurisdiction with the creation of this, one could attach a constitutional chamber in each court would fail in 1 instance being the constitutional court which finally decides about guardianships is illogical to limit the power of the court of constitutional law. As things are the solution to the problems facing the judiciary have no quick solution for the lack of commitment from the other branches of power to solve the problem.

In conclusion, the judiciary and in my humble opinion I think it is a constitutional amendment is unnecessary as they could not also categorized the past suffered our young constitution with an emergency law that could dampen the executive impasse until a permanent solution found or ignore the requests of the judges of high courts.

CRITICA A LA REFORMA PLANTEADA POR EL GOBIERNO A LA RAMA JUDICIAL EN COLOMBIA

En Colombia la crisis  que se vive en la rama judicial hace más de 20 años, llego en la actualidad a un punto crítico que pone en peligro los ideales y principios plasmados en la constitución política de Colombia de 1991.

Esta crisis  se debe a la falta de leyes eficaces al contexto colombiano y el déficit de presupuesto de la rama judicial, pero con la reforma planteada por el ejecutivo para aliviar esta crisis desde mi punto de vista es insuficiente y pone en peligro la armonio tripartita del estado lo que quiere decir que debilita la rama judicial frente a los demás poderes que son el ejecutivo y legislativo.

Si agregamos el choque interno que se vive en las  altas cortes por las discrepancias, diferencias en métodos de interpretación jurídica para cada caso y cada corte  lo que propone esta reforma a la justicia al darle competencias a las cortes  para investigar y juzgar a sus magistrados, quitarle competencias al consejo de estado. ¿Por qué? Es darle facultades a las distintas cortes para investigar a uno corte u otra por ciertos fallos lo que hace que se pierda la armonía y la agilidad que debe caracterizar la justicia ya que se desgastan en asuntos irrelevantes, Es agudizar la problemática de la rama judicial. Esta reforma desde mi punto de vista no va aliviar la carga que en este momento tienen los jueces y magistrados por los procesos represados ya que para estándares internacionales  por el número de ciudadanos, a Colombia le hace falta doblar su cuerpo de diseptatoris y los funcionarios que ayudan a estos. Y esta medida solo sería efectiva para lograr un equilibrio en los procesos futuros que entran  para ser dirimidos para destrabar el aparato judicial se necesitan unos jueces y magistrados temporales que se dedicarían a solucionar procesos reprimidos en las altas cortes, en la reforma a la rama judicial no se enuncia ninguno de estos planteamientos.

Otro problema es el de leyes retrogradas que van a un paso paquidérmico y se quedaron atrás del estado social de derecho  es necesario la reforma de la mayoría de códigos procedimentales y el paso a la oralidad en todas las instancias judiciales no da espera.

Se debería crear la jurisdicción constitucional para que sean estos funcionarios especialistas en derecho constitucional  al servicio del ciudadano las 24 horas del día como ocurre en México con el amparo constitucional lo que en nuestro medio se conoce como la acción de tutela.

Por la seguridad jurídica es necesario la unificación de la doctrina de las altas cortes y una fuerza vinculante para los jueces  de inferior jerarquía ya que de hacerse este proceso los casos que llegarían a casación o a las altas cortes serían en los que exista alguna laguna jurídica pero para los similares el juez de inferior jerarquía ya sabría cómo debería dictar su fallo, el problema  es ¿Quién debe hacer esa labor? En la reforma a la justicia se plantea que en materia de derechos fundamentales sea la corte constitucional  apoyo esta noción ya que la corte constitucional al ser el intérprete natural de la constitución goza de una jerarquía superior a los demás tribunales en materia de  derechos fundamentales, al ser la constitución política ley de leyes y cabeza de la jurisdicción colombiana su interprete goza de igual categoría, las demás cortes no están de acuerdo con este enunciado de la reforma a la justicia ¿Por qué?  Consideran que cada tribunal debe ser natural para dirimir estas sentencias en caso de los fallos de tutela contra providencias judiciales, que sería violar el  principio de la autonomía institucional.

Para ese conflicto planteo la siguiente solución  es con la creación de la jurisdicción constitucional con la creación de esta, se podría anexar una sala constitucional en cada corte  que fallarían en 1 instancia siendo la corte constitucional la que definitivamente decida sobre las tutelas es ilógico limitar el poder de la corte del derecho político. Como van las cosas la solución a los problemas que aquejan a la rama judicial no tienen pronta solución por la falta de compromiso de las demás ramas del poder para solucionar la problemática.

En conclusión la rama judicial y en mi humilde opinión considero que es una reforma constitucional que no es innecesaria como podrían también catalogarse las ultimas que sufrió nuestra joven constitución  con una ley  de emergencia se podría amortiguar  este impase  hasta que el ejecutivo encuentre una solución de fondo o haga caso a las peticiones de los magistrados de los altos tribunales.

CONTROL OF SOURCES OF LAW (1992-2000)

CONTROL OF SOURCES OF LAW (1992-2000) INTRODUCTION

The sources of law in Colombia, have been a constant struggle between the executive and the judiciary, the two powers have sought to define the scope of such by executive decrees and orders and judgments on the other. The truth here is that the two powers broke a historic battle between the promulgation of the constitution in 1991 until 2000, leaving countless evidence and case law decrees that illustrate positions of the two powers, depending on the context and time and the purposes intended each. The historical tour is in sight to these judgments and decrees, help establish the endless theories that have opted in Colombia to determine what would fill the void left by the law in some difficult cases and regulatory gaps that live right on the move are inevitable?And the definition of compulsory ancillary each of these sources will be within the legal system. Analysis and disputes will be in the respective work each high court judgments that reflect their position on the issue, and the decrees issued by the executive and the interests of this to identify the sources of law.PERIOD (1992-1995): FIRST BATTLES IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION OF PREVIOUSTowards a strong precedencial driven by the executive: Article 21 of Decree 2067 of 1991. The constitutional precedent, and its value was defined by constitution, as an auxiliary criterion in the art. 230 which stated: "Los judges in their decisions, are subject to the rule of law. Equity, law, general principles of law and doctrine Are auxiliary criteria of judicial activity ¨. [1] but the executive in 1991 and some judges, with a trend of legal reform and the claim that the failure of enforcing the constitutional court, which had greater value and enjoyed by the formation, with such intentions, the executive of the time with a special constitutional power to define and regulate the procedures of the court, decides to enact the 2067 decree which in its content (especially the Arts. 21 and 23) were expressed positively the increase of normative value The court rulings have. However, the traditionalism of judges within the court, interposed between the executive's plans and some progressive judges, in that it rejected the new system of precedents that the reformers had been imposed by the decree. You sparked a battle within the court, which issued several statements, which at first glance they were to reveal the criteria by which the court did not consider if you want this decree, such criteria were: the traditional sources and functional autonomy . In one of the most controversial decisions of the court at this time is the c 113 1993, as this is reflected in the criteria that the court decided to reject outright the reformist trend of the sources of law, on the sidelines of the sentence seemed to have stopped the fight in that apparently provided a generous standard for constitutional precedent ¨ the sentences he utters the Constitutional Court have the force of res judicata are constitutional and binding on all authorities and individuals ¨ [2] very generous, it seems, but the court in the same statement later said that mandatory for authorities and private individuals, but only does the reference to a faculty already stipulated in the constitution [3] in which it will be for judgments of abstract review of constitutionality and is inter partes, which closes over the narrow field of mandatory precedent and no assistants. As for the functional autonomy, the court explained that it was her only which should set the value of the judgments that this is according to the constitution, because it has the duty and obligation to ensure the integrity and supremacy of Constitution . During the period 1991 to 1995, the court reiterated its multiple statements over and over again, because it paved the traditionalist view of the sources of law, but over the years, within the constitutional court, many judges were opting for the thesis reformist minority were always these, and it is very common to find sentences in which these defend, that position, because they had to take account of the surveillance had saved the integrity and guard the constitution and its verified the previous statements that aids the constitutional precedent. The reformers had the opportunity later was a suit challenging the law 153 of 1887, and primary law database throughout the system and the system of interpretation in the legal sources, this statement is demanded of this article 8 law, which he said: ¨ When there is no law exactly applicable to the case at issue, apply the laws governing such cases or matters, and failing that, the constitutional doctrine and general rules of law ¨. [4] the court to analyze this article, found a discrepancy between the expression of constitutional doctrine set forth in the above mentioned law and jurisprudence expression mentioned by the constitution. Which then generates the court made clear on the concept of constitutional doctrine and jurisprudence, in light of this ruling the court made clear that constitutional doctrine is divided into two: the first is the inclusive constitutional doctrine which is the same constitution and operates when there is a gap in the law and the constitutional doctrine of interpretation that are the interpretations that make the cut at the top card for this to be the top performer and legitimacy of this, which only meets clarify the legal gaps and hence its application or is not only a pattern auxiliary, while the inclusive doctrine that is the same constitution has implied obligation that is not debatable. In the case of precedents, which are the rulings of the court as to guardianships and other court not to have a value of obligation as well as in similar cases with similar circumstances. With this and other rulings, the Constitutional Court during this period, close the page in the discussion of constitutional precedent as an auxiliary source or mandatory, to stop clear cutting is necessary to express the traditionalist and the constitution and have been given the implicit value their judgments, and that is a function of monitoring and safeguarding the integrity of it could not fail in another way that the constitution has already been pronounced. For many, this only proves that the judges of that time were either too cautious with their work or about dinosaurs right.[1] Constitution of Colombia. 1991. Read, 2011 edition. [2] Judgement c113 of 1993. MP. Jorge Arango Mejía. [3] Article 241, no. 4 č.p. [4] Act 153 of 1887. General rules on the validity and enforcement.CONSOLIDATION IN THE PERIOD ABOVE COVERS THE YEARS 1996 TO 2000For the consolidation of constitutional precedent could not reach a consensus of the nine judges who make up Colombia's constitutional court judges dominated by about 5 to purely ideological tendency traditionalists on the sources of law not allowed to take the big step of constitutional precedent is essential in a social state of law.The constitutional precedent is based on fundamental principles and rights that apply to similar cases in the theory and have a binding force for the judges to be issued by our constitution in the Colombian case this is true in the future when our constitution so young but in cases that merit review and to break with failure dictates of other courts.Consolidation is achieved with the previous sanction of statutory law for the administration of justice in Article 48 before its amendment said. SCOPE OF THE JUDGEMENT IN THE EXERCISE OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONTROL. The judgments issued pursuant to constitutional control have the following effect:   1. The Constitutional Court handed down as a result of the review of legal norms, whether by action or prior review, the performance of automatic control of constitutionality, shall be binding upon and with effect erga omnes in its operative part .The relevant part constitute auxiliary criterion for judicial activity and the application of the rules of law in general. Only the interpretation by way of authority does Congress have mandatory general. [1]    Which generated the union of judges who then formed the constitutional court. To defend against direct attack from Congress in an effort to limit the scope of the rulings by that entity. Declared enforceable emphasized eliminating the expression before the original text of the standard.With this step, the court began its constitutional doctrine based on the precedent and very important at the time of granting the right to equality and legal certainty enshrined in the constitution of Colombia, but also started a fight in the judiciary by the thesis which hosted the Constitutional Court. Perhaps for lack of knowledge about the extent of the powers conferred by the nascent constitutional court. Whose function is to safeguard our constitution.  One of these conflicts are seen in the judgment SU-640/98 dealing with the period of election of mayors that conception is different from the council of state in the sentence reads: "The State Council, however, disagrees the position expressed by the Constitutional Court, as expressed in various judgments. The supreme court in the administrative court finds that the period of mayors and governors is institutional, that assertion based on a proper interpretation of the relevant constitutional provisions. That is, the position of the State Council - based on a serious and respectable argument - deliberately departs from the position it has consistently defined the Constitutional Court on this matter. That is precisely one of the main reasons for declaring the partial invalidity of the National Electoral Council resolution which extended the period for exercising the mayor of Fresno [2].From our point of view, the state council directly violated the constitution by failing to abide by court decisions to interpret constitutional and prosperous of the constitution, not being competent to do so.As the constitution law of laws supreme authority over the law shows that the constitutional court for the jurisdiction and authority emanating from the higher standard is the highest court in the country and the others must abide by its decision to maintain harmony and legal certainty.    CONCLUSIONSThe Constitutional Court is the head of the entire legal system in Colombia, has absolute jurisdiction and powers granted by the Constitution.Despite attempts of the legislature to restrict its broad spectrum achieves the constitution imposed on the three branches of power, this is evident in constitutional studies makes the decisions handed down by other courts.  If the role of lawyers and so is peace and to achieve this goal is the best mechanism for conciliation adquem that does not seem there was a higher-level political card.    Which leads us to believe that the flaws in the judicial system because judges do not assimilate medieval constitution change pachydermal making it the judicial function.