The Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (SCJ) established a channel of dialogue with the Constitutional Court (TC) to define the powers between them.
The SCJ court established that dialogue between the high courts is necessary due to multiple factors, one of them being the fact that the rule of delimitation of their respective jurisdictions does not actually draw a precise dividing line with respect to the matters that must be heard by the respective courts, in accordance with the provisions of ruling no. SCJ-TS-24-1930, dated September 30, 2024.
From the above it is summarized that it is up to the Supreme Court to interpret the law and the TC the Constitution.
In the decision of the Third Chamber the sentences are cited T.C./0152/13 dated September 12, 2013, and TC/0296/16 dated July 18, 2016, which establish certain criteria related to the appeal analyzed regarding the competence of the Council of Aldermen and the Planning Office Urban as an organ of the Mayor’s Office to issue particular or specific land use permits.
The ruling refers to the fact that from a correct interpretation of the Constitution and Law No. 176-07 of the National District and the municipalities derives the power that the mayor’s office has to resolve private, concrete and specific land use requests, since It deals with administrative acts of an executive-technical nature within its jurisdiction as an executive body.
The SCJ explains that while the Council of Aldermen is an exclusive regulatory and oversight body, it will have the power, in this matter of land use, to approve regulations, policies or general plans that must be implemented by the mayors.
In that sense, the judges agreed that the Council of Aldermen is not empowered to resolve on particular, concrete and specific land use requests (no objection certifications), which are executive-technical powers of the urban planning offices. as a mayoral body.
The high court adds that as a consequence of these binding and mandatory precedents, the appeals of cassation filed, both by the National District and incidentally by the commercial company Constructora Inmobiliaria Molina, SRL, and Jorge Serrano Noboa, were rejected.
To analyze the complete sentence issued by judges Manuel Alexis Read Ortiz (president of the aforementioned chamber), Manuel R. Herrera Carbuccia, Moisés A. Ferrer.
