The magistrates of the Constitutional Court They formally began the study of Five demands which have been admitted, on different charges, against the recently approved pension reform of the government of President Gustavo Petro.
The five complaints admitted by the high court were filed by Congressmen who did not support the initiative when it was still being processed as a bill in the Congress of the Republic.
(Read also: Petro defends pension reform and denounces threats against him).
83 of the claims received by the Court had the law number incorrectly written (2381 of 2024), while 35 arrived with the correct data. However, these were the five actions admitted:
The demand of Paloma Valencia
On August 13, the Judge Jorge Ibañez admitted a lawsuit filed by the Senator of the Democratic Centre, Paloma Valenciaagainst the entire text of the reform to the national pension system.
One of the charges that the Court is analyzing in detail is If the democratic debate was avoided with the decision of the House of Representatives to accept in its entirety the text sent by the Senate.
(Read more: Petro says it was the DEA that alerted him of an alleged plan to assassinate him).
Senator Paloma Valencia
“The first charge made (ignorance of Article 157 of the Political Constitution) is clear, because its meaning can be understood; true, since it questions the fact that the legislative procedure that gave rise to Law 2381 of 2024 had avoided the parliamentary debate in the plenary session of the House of Representatives; specific, since it seeks to demonstrate why Article 157 of the Political Constitution was ignored, by ignoring an essential aspect in the legislative process.“, is stated in the admission order.
Another of the charges evaluated by the Court has to do with with that if, in an eventual manner, article 48 of the Constitution was transgressed, which prohibits establishing special pension regimes with exceptionArticle 93 of the reform speaks of differential treatment for indigenous peoples, communities, blacks, Afro-descendants, Raizals, Palenqueras and peasants.
The demand of the Democratic Center bench in the House and other opposition congressmen
On August 21, the Judge Jose Fernando Reyes admitted the second lawsuit against the reform, which was filed by the Representatives of the Democratic Center Carlos Osorio Aguiar, Andres Forero, Oscar Villamizar, Hernan Cadavid, Oscar Dario Perez, Holmes Echeverria, Hugo Danilo Lozano, Yenica Sugein Acosta, Jose Jaime Uscategui, Yulieth Sanchez, John Jairo Berrio, Eduardo Triana, Juan Corzo, Christian Garces, Juan Espinal, and Edison Olaya.
(Further: What are they about? The first articles of the pension reform that will be regulated).
The lawsuit is also signed by Marelen Castillo, former vice-presidential candidate of Rodolfo Hernández, of the League of Anti-Corruption Governors, and Luz Ayda Pastrana, of the Cambio Radical party.
Andres Forero
The action was formulated for the same charge of alleged violation of article 57 of the Constitution, warning that The project did not have the four required debates in the House, as it was approved in the third debate, and due to the alleged violation of Article 160 of the Constitution.which speaks of a certain period between debates.
“The office warns that the reproaches formulated, in principle, are clear because the arguments presented allow us to understand how the approval of the bill in the fourth debate allegedly infringed the principles of publicity and consecutiveness, as well as the avoidance of debate.“, states a ruling by Judge Reyes.
Katherine Miranda’s lawsuit
On August 30th, the Judge Natalia Angel admitted a claim from the Representative to the House of Representatives of the Green Alliance party, Katherine Mirandawhich calls for the entire pension reform to be overturned on the grounds that it violates the process of forming the democratic will of the representatives in the House; the principles of consecutiveness and publicity; and the duty to analyse fiscal impact.
Katherine Miranda
The congresswoman warned that On the day that the pension reform was approved in a so-called ‘pupitrazo’, the text submitted by the Senate was not included in the agenda of the plenary session in which they would vote in its entirety..
“The plaintiff added that during the aforementioned plenary session, the Secretary General of the House of Representatives read a proposal filed by several congressmen, in which they suggested accepting the text approved by the Senate and published in Gazette 497 of 2024. Citizen Miranda Peña specified that, although the proposal expressly stated that Gazette 497 of 2024 was delivered physically, this never happened. In addition, the plaintiff pointed out that the House approved the proposal approximately 1 hour and 5 minutes after it was presented.“, states a ruling by Judge Ángel.
Christian Garcés’ lawsuit
Judge Angel, on that same day, also admitted a claim from the Representative of the Democratic Center, Christian Garcéswho appears in the other lawsuit filed by his party in the House.
(You may be interested in: Domestic demand and confidence: current challenges for the Colombian economy).
Christian Garcés
The legal action was only admitted against article 84 of the reform, which speaks of tax treatment and for the charge of alleged ignorance of article 154 of the Magna Cartain which its fourth paragraph indicates that the “Bills related to taxes will begin their process in the House of Representatives and those related to international relations, in the Senate.“.
The lawsuit of Carlos Fernando Motoa
On September 12, Judge Vladimir Fernandez admitted the complaint of the Senator of Cambio Radical, Carlos Fernando Motoaagainst the entire text of the pension reform.
(You may be interested in: From financing law to tax reform: the new proposal from Congress).
Carlos Fernando Motoa
The charges were admitted “related to the alleged violation of the principles of fiscal sustainability (articles 2, 48 paragraph 7, 113 and 334 CP), publicity and bicameralism (numbers 1 and 3 of article 157 CP) and democratic principle (articles 154 paragraph 3, 157 and 160 CP)“, states a judge’s order.
The congressman requested the suspension of the effects of the pension reform, but this request was denied.The request submitted by the plaintiff in relation to the provisional measure of “suspension of the effects of the promulgation of Law 2381 of 2024 until there is a ruling on its constitutionality” will be denied.“, the car indicates.
PORTFOLIO
*With information from EL TIEMPO – JUSTICE
