La deferencia del Tribunal Constitucional respecto del juez de la gestión pendiente en la cuestión de inaplicabilidad

José Ignacio  Martínez Estay

doi:10.4067/s0718-52002015000100008

La deferencia del Tribunal Constitucional respecto del juez de la gestión pendiente en la cuestión de inaplicabilidad

José Ignacio Martínez Estay^*

^*Autor correspondiente de este trabajo

Producción científica: Contribución a una revista › Artículo › revisión exhaustiva

4 Citas (Scopus)

Resumen

Desde la reforma constitucional de 2005, la deferencia y auto-restricción del Tribunal Constitucional en el control de los poderes públicos es un supuesto no sólo respecto del legislador y del ejecutivo, sino que también de los jueces ordinarios y especiales, a raíz del modelo de inaplicabilidad consagrado en el artículo 93 N° 6 de la Constitución. La jurisprudencia del Tribunal Constitucional revela su esfuerzo por restringir el control a lo estrictamente necesario, y a procurar no asumir competencias y facultades que reconoce como propias del juez de la gestión pendiente. En el presente trabajo se revisarán los criterios de deferencia extraídos de dicha jurisprudencia.

Título traducido de la contribución	The deference of the constitutional court to inferior courts in inapplicability cases: The deference of the Constitutional Court to inferior courts in inapplicability cases
Idioma original	Español
Páginas (desde-hasta)	237-270
Número de páginas	34
Publicación	Estudios Constitucionales
Volumen	13
N.º	1
DOI	https://doi.org/10.4067/s0718-52002015000100008
Estado	Publicada - 27 jul. 2015

Nota bibliográfica

Publisher Copyright:
© 2015, Universidad de Talca. All rights reserved.

Palabras clave

Constitutional court
Deference and self restriction criteria
Inapplicability
Judges

Acceder al documento

10.4067/s0718-52002015000100008

Otros archivos y enlaces

Enlace a la publicación en Scopus

Citar esto

@article{599fdb10ca9f493c9288a95a9e6e109b,

title = "La deferencia del Tribunal Constitucional respecto del juez de la gesti{\'o}n pendiente en la cuesti{\'o}n de inaplicabilidad",

abstract = "Since the constitutional amendment of 2005, the deference and self-restriction of the Constitutional Court is not only a matter in his relationship with the legislator and the executive power, but with ordinary and special judges too. This is a consecuence of the new inapplicability enshrined in Article 93 Nº 6 of the Constitution. The Constitutional Court{\textquoteright}s jurisprudence reveals the special effort to restrict their control to what is necessary, and try not to assume jurisdiction and powers of those judges. This paper analyze the deference criteria drawn from the Constitutional Court jurisprudence.",

keywords = "Constitutional court, Deference and self restriction criteria, Inapplicability, Judges",

author = "{Mart{\'i}nez Estay}, {Jos{\'e} Ignacio}",

year = "2015",

month = jul,

day = "27",

doi = "10.4067/s0718-52002015000100008",

language = "Spanish",

volume = "13",

pages = "237--270",

journal = "Estudios Constitucionales",

issn = "0718-0195",

publisher = "Universidad de Talca",

number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - La deferencia del Tribunal Constitucional respecto del juez de la gestión pendiente en la cuestión de inaplicabilidad

AU - Martínez Estay, José Ignacio

PY - 2015/7/27

Y1 - 2015/7/27

N2 - Since the constitutional amendment of 2005, the deference and self-restriction of the Constitutional Court is not only a matter in his relationship with the legislator and the executive power, but with ordinary and special judges too. This is a consecuence of the new inapplicability enshrined in Article 93 Nº 6 of the Constitution. The Constitutional Court’s jurisprudence reveals the special effort to restrict their control to what is necessary, and try not to assume jurisdiction and powers of those judges. This paper analyze the deference criteria drawn from the Constitutional Court jurisprudence.

AB - Since the constitutional amendment of 2005, the deference and self-restriction of the Constitutional Court is not only a matter in his relationship with the legislator and the executive power, but with ordinary and special judges too. This is a consecuence of the new inapplicability enshrined in Article 93 Nº 6 of the Constitution. The Constitutional Court’s jurisprudence reveals the special effort to restrict their control to what is necessary, and try not to assume jurisdiction and powers of those judges. This paper analyze the deference criteria drawn from the Constitutional Court jurisprudence.

KW - Constitutional court

KW - Deference and self restriction criteria

KW - Inapplicability

KW - Judges

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84937902519&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.4067/s0718-52002015000100008

DO - 10.4067/s0718-52002015000100008

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84937902519

SN - 0718-0195

VL - 13

SP - 237

EP - 270

JO - Estudios Constitucionales

JF - Estudios Constitucionales

IS - 1

ER -

La deferencia del Tribunal Constitucional respecto del juez de la gestión pendiente en la cuestión de inaplicabilidad

Resumen

Nota bibliográfica

Palabras clave

Acceder al documento

Otros archivos y enlaces

Huella

Citar esto