FERNANDEZ ARIAS c / POGGIO
Read the full ruling here: Elena Fernández Arias et al v. Poggio José
laws Congress passed 13,246, 13,897 and 14,451, which ordered the executive to arrange with the Ministry of Agriculture, the Regional Chambers joint conciliation and compulsory arbitration, and Central House. These cameras were made up of representatives of rural landowners and tenants and sharecroppers. Created
agencies were organized as follows, the Regional Chambers had exclusive jurisdiction in deciding all questions arising between landlords and tenants or sharecroppers, on the occasion of the respective leases or rural sharecropping, the decisions of this House be appealed to the Central Chamber whose decisions were subject to the special appeal to the Supreme Court.
The case stems from a conflict between Fernandez Arias and Poggio in which the Chamber of Trenque Lauquen, Poggio ordered to surrender the property in question, against that decision, the convicted concluded special appeal be denied that prompted a complaint to the Supreme Court, which challenged the constitutionality of laws 13,246, 13,897 and 14,451, since they were created by administrative bodies endowed with judicial power which is contrary to Article 95 of the Constitution, which prevents the executive branch to exercise judicial functions, it violates the Article 67 inc. 11 of the Constitution since they are empowered to resolve Cameras joint negotiations on matters specific to the judicial authorities of provinces, and violates article 18 of the Constitution, as everyone recognizes the right of defense at trial before the Judiciary. The challenged laws removed from the judicial sphere to some conflicts to be settled exclusively by administrative courts.
the appealed decision is reversed and the court declares the unconstitutionality of the challenged rules. Leaving setting that is compatible with the Constitution to create administrative bodies with judicial powers, taking into account that have expanded the functions of management, as agile as necessary for the protection of public interests. While our Constitution recepta the doctrine of separation of powers, so that the judicial function would correspond only to the Judiciary, this provision should be interpreted dynamically according to changing social needs.
Decisions discussion of the bodies should be subject to judicial review, otherwise it would violate Article 18 of the Constitution, which recognizes all the inhabitants of the country the right to go to court. A difference is the adequacy of the principle of separation of powers in contemporary life, and violation of its substance, what would happen if you completely deprive the judiciary of its authority.
The mandatory court is not satisfied with the possibility of an extraordinary appeal before the Supreme Court, since it is a process widely known, therefore not enough to guarantee the right to a judicial body deep and complete.
Fundamentals Dissidence
Drs. Boffi, Boggero, Aberasturi
coincide with the decision of the majority but disagree with the arguments, are more restrictive as to the merits of granting judicial functions to administrative bodies.
The Article 95 of the Constitution prohibits the executive branch exercising judicial power contrary to the constitutional provision under review laws give courts powers to bodies in the field of Administration. While
social needs may require administrative bodies exercising judicial functions exception, Article 18 of the Constitution requires that there is always a court.
Members of the Houses joint negotiations are appointed and dismissed by the Executive, therefore do not enjoy the necessary independence to carry out the judicial function as well not have a qualification to pursue a legal function.
By direction of the Section 67 inc. 11 of the Constitution the provinces retain the application of common law, unlike the contested rules establishing a system by which law is applied by chambers created, having jurisdiction, not provincial.
is accepted the exercise of judicial functions by administrative organs.
The judiciary must retain reviewing the allocation of decisions issued by the administrative courts.
The federal special appeal does not meet the requirement of judicial review.
0 comments:
Post a Comment