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]
The present paper will analyze the procedural autonomy that the Constitutional Court has in order to solve the causes that are put under it knowledge. As it is observed, there are two theses; one of them totally denies the procedural autonomy to the Constitutional Court, but the other one agrees about the procedural autonomy of the Constitutional Court. From my point of view I consider that the Constitutional Court has procedural autonomy, which will be sustained throughout the present investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Published
2012
Discovery Service for Jio Institute Digital Library
For full access to our library's resources, please sign in.