Search

This paper addresses the issue of the constitutional legitimacy of the Constitutional Court's decisions in the context of the jurisdictional disputes of the branches of government, with a special emphasis on the recent conflicts arising from the dissolution of the Congress of the Republic and the vacancy of the President of the Republic. The research analyzes the doctrine and jurisprudence regarding the grounds that legitimize the role of the Constitutional Court in the control of political acts and concludes that the defense of the principle of normative supremacy of the constitution imposes a substantive resolution in the competence processes of this nature. [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]

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]