Search

This papers aims the unconstitutionality of articles 142º and 181º of the Political Constitution of Peru, regarding the irreversible and unchallengeable nature of the resolutions issued by the National Election Jury, through the legal institution of electoral protection, whose main purpose of challenging the final decisions of said electoral body against violations of citizens' political rights, such as political participation in electoral acts, due to the processes of registration of candidacies for the election of positions of popular mandate, in the counting process and in the proclamation of results, as well as in the registration process of political organizations. For this, we will expose, in the light of the interpretations of legal philosophy, the seven most important constitutional rulings of the Constitutional Court in matters of electoral protection, understood as a human right to free choice, which must be respected by all. It concludes on the relevance of the control of constitutionality before the actions of the National Election Jury, always having as its north the legitimate and legal practice of elections, as a guarantee of protection of the constitutional and democratic rights of all individuals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper deals with the model of constitutional control in Peru. The author comes to historical, conceptual and jurisprudential sources for, on the one hand, identify and understand the context that gives rise to its origin and secondly, to analyze its procedural operation in Peru, baring the deficiencies that presents. Hence it is claimed that the Peruvian judicial review is a "model even put together". Finally, it states that the exploration of judicial review serves to clarify some concepts that link it very closely with constitutional interpretation, in the light not only of what holds the current comparison doctrine but also its reception in the jurisprudence of the Peruvian Constitutional Court. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper builds on the amendment of Article 10 of the Normative of the Peruvian Constitutional Court to analyze a problem: the distinctions between the types of decisions handed down by the Constitutional Court (binding precedent, constitutional jurisprudence, interpretative rulings). It is held that this distinction undermines the status and role of Supreme Interpreter of the Constitution which currently holds the Constitutional Court. And it is argued that the type of decisions is inconsistent with that role. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]