Publicación:

Los juicios de sustitución constitucional como causal de inexequibilidad de los actos legislativos: ¿dictadura constitucional o constitucionalismo democrático?

Resumen

The substitution test or trial as a mechanism or means for the declaration of unconstitutionality of the legislative acts issued by the Congress of the Republic, by the Constitutional Court, hovers an atmosphere of permanent tension and distrust among branches of public power, which worth saying, by constitutional mandate, must collaborate harmoniously for the realization of the purposes of the State. According to article 374 of our constitution; the Congress of the Republic can, through a legislative act, reform it. However, since 2003, the Constitutional Court has been systematically declaring several of these reform projects as unconstitutional, arguing that the faculty of reform cannot be used as a means to replace the set of matters that are part of the denominated defining axes of the Magna Carta. Issues that, from the perspective of the high Constitutional Court, are unchangeable. In that order of ideas, and given that the Constitutional Court protected in its faculties as maximum and last interpreter of the constitutional text has developed its doctrine about substitution judgments as a cause of unconstitutionality for constitutional reforms emanating from the Congress of the Republic, the present work seeks to formulate a critique of the constitutional control that the High Constitutional Court makes to the constitutional reforms that arise from the so-called secondary constituent, although they are popular initiative. Thus, first seek to establish the origin and development of this doctrine in constitutional jurisprudence, in addition to it will expose the requirements and the methodology used by the Constitutional Court in its implementation, to finally issue some considerations and conclusions in this regard.