Publicación: La acción de tutela como mecanismo constitucional para el amparo del derecho del servicio de internet en la educación en época de la pandemia (2020- 2021)
Portada
Citas bibliográficas
Código QR
Director
Autor corporativo
Recolector de datos
Otros/Desconocido
Director audiovisual
Editor/Compilador
Editores
Tipo de Material
Fecha
Cita bibliográfica
Título de serie/ reporte/ volumen/ colección
Es Parte de
Resumen
Education is an essential public service in Colombia, however, due to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, there are problems with high school students from public institutions, especially from social strata 1, 2 and 3, because they do not have internet service in their homes, for a continuous connection that interferes with other rights such as education, equality, free personality and human dignity; In addition, in the XXI Century, new Information and Communication Technologies are required to be at the forefront of the challenges of innovation and globalization. The selected methodology is qualitative of a descriptive type, with an inductive method that allowed the elaboration of a work route. Six sentences were defined in the period 2020 and 2021, in which it is evident that there are two guardianships that were denied due to lack of evidence, three of constitutional control for the Tic Law Law 1978 of 2018, Legislative Decree 771 of 2020 and Decree 417 of 2020, one approved. The entities to which the tutelas were applied are the Ministry of Education, a telecommunications company, public companies of Medellín, the Departmental Secretary of Antioquia and the Municipal Secretary of Jericó. The legal value of guardianship was given from its beginnings as evidenced in Judgment T-222 of 1992, the scope according to Judgment T-407 of 1993, its origin according to Judgment C-018 of 1993. The most outstanding results are that there are three constitutional control tutelages through which the national government will have the resources and strategies to offer connectivity in the territories, two of these tutelages were denied for not providing the evidentiary material by the plaintiff and only one was approved.