He President Gustavo Petro sent a formal request to the Constitutional Court To convene a Public Hearing within the framework of the constitutionality control process of the Reform to the General Pension Systemsanctioned last year and that would take effect as of July 1 of the current year.
It should be noted that this arises after the Senator Paloma Valencia will sue the articles of unconstitutionality vices following how the then bill being approved to be sanctioned by the Head of State.
(Further: Referendo for fiscal autonomy: Another request for the regions that arrives at Congress).
In the letter, addressed to the magistrates of the Court, the first president mentioned that several citizens, from the Academy and Social Organizations, have requested the call of this hearing. Quot the University of Antioquia and the jurist Rodrigo Uprimny Like some of the interested parties.
President Gustavo Petro signs and sanctions the pension.
EFE
“The legitimacy of constitutionality control rests, ultimately, on the quality of deliberation that precedes the decisions of the court”Said the president.
(Further: Pension reform: the transition regime could be renounced and returned).
He also noted that an audience would not only strengthen the legal analysis of the Court, but also deepen the debate between citizens, academics and social sectors on the reform.
The foundations
Ana María Londoño Agudelo and Gloria Patricia Lopera Mesa, professors from the Faculty of Law and Political Science at the University of Antioquiathey assured that the end of the public hearing is “deepen the knowledge of the facts and in the citizen deliberation about the relevant arguments to respond to the legal problems that the positions of procedure formulated against Law 2381 of 2024 in this and other ongoing processes“
(We recommend: Winds against pension reform in the Constitutional Court).
They mention that, although the Court has ruled several times about the circumstances that make up debate elusion, it is the first time that it addresses the study of an accusation of this type against a law “in whose process there were obvious practices of parliamentary obstructionism“
“The response to these charges claims of the Court to set the scope within which practices of parliamentary obstructionism and its effects on the constitutional control of the legislative procedure are admissible for charges such as those proposed here. On this basis, the Court must establish an adequate constitutional balance between the right of minorities to oppose a project to become law and the right of the majorities to decide“The teachers said.
On the other hand, the jurists Juan Sebastián Ceballos Bedoya and Rodrigo Uprimny YepesThey said they had already submitted their position against the demand for unenforceability against the reform, in addition to having asked the Court to dismiss it.
They mention that “First, this case is not easy. According to the sources of law currently in force, it is difficult to define whether the one alleged by the shareholder constitutes a procedure vice. As we show in our intervention, there is no constitutional or legal norm that regulates this assumption, and neither a precedent that resolves a strictly analogous case to it. A public hearing is justified then to provide elements of judgment that facilitate the Court to resolve whether the invoked in the claim is a procedure vice“
(You can read: National Registry Merit Contest: When do you open registrations in 2025?).
They added that, “Secondly, although it is not an easy case, the reasonable thing in our opinion would be to conclude that there was no procedural vice, but an action of the majority to defend their constitutional right to decide, threatened throughout the process by the effective minority obstructionism“
“Thirdly, in principle it would be reasonable for the Court to announce a change in its jurisprudence for future cases similar to this, but not for this. Thus, I could declare that for issues to come, not even in cases of parliamentary obstructionism, the majority can close the debate to avoid the deliberation separately of articles, when it has been requested and decreed, and the projects merit it for its importance constitutional or for the deep disagreements they wake up in Congress“They added.
Portfolio
