The Plenary Chamber of the Supreme Court expressed its disagreement and concern about the decision of the Constitutional Court in favor of the Congress

Full chamber of the Supreme Court He expressed his disagreement and concern about the Constitutional Court’s (CC) verdict in favor of Congress on the requirement of conflict of jurisdiction over court rulings.

By a decision approved by the majority, the Plenary Chamber referred to the judgment of 23 February 2023, which was published in the Official Gazette. Peruvian man last March 9th.

“He Power of attorney cannot agree with the arguments given in the aforementioned decision constitutional Court. Rather, it expresses concern about the legal concept it adopts and highlights the serious implications it can have for the protection of fundamental rights of citizens and the independence of the judiciary,” they note.

On Judicial Independence

In addition, they note that in its ruling, the TC not only overturned the rulings issued by the three jurisdictional bodies in the amparo proceedings, but also condemned the official conduct of the judges who issued them in order to determine possible disciplinary liability against him, something that they considered serious.

In the same spirit, they defended judicial independence, especially when supervising the actions of other public authorities “in defense of the rule of law and protection of the rights of litigants”, for which they considered that the court opinions contained in the decision “can not be subjected to disciplinary censorship” and that this is “unreasonable call into question the suitability and integrity of judges.”

They mention that judicial independence defines the very function of jurisdiction and that Constitution guarantees the jurisdictional authority “a space untouched by others state powers” without interference, restrictions or conditions.

Thus, they argue that, when it comes to the control of the activities of other public authorities, “jurisdictional requirements cannot interfere with it, since they limit, when it comes to the judiciary, the governmental and administrative powers of its organs and administration.” , in areas that are definitely organically competent.”

pajama performance

They also indicate that control over the constitutionality of the actions of public authorities is recognized by the Constitution from Power of attorney in the process of diffuse control, as well as in the constitutional processes of freedom, what they indicated is not exclusive or exclusive constitutional Court.

“Today, the jurisdictional immunities of the authorities are no longer recognized, and therefore it is clear that the exercise of discretionary powers can be controlled and what was previously called “acts not subject to prosecution” or political issues – which always have a constitutional-normative dimension and require that every decision respect a minimum of fairness and reasonableness – albeit under certain very clear principles of protection of rights and constitutional and customary legality,” they point out.

In this sense, the Chamber declares that it is unacceptable “to underestimate the function of jurisdiction in the interests of other organs of the state, with the serious risk of upsetting the balance of power and departing from the constitutional system developed by our fundamental law.”