Article 2o. To article 19 of Law 100 of 1993, as amended by article 6 of Law 797 of 2003, add a paragraph of the following tenor:

" Paragraph: the persons referred to in this Article, whose monthly income is less than or equal to one (1) monthly statutory minimum wage, who register such income in accordance with the procedure to be determined by the National Government, will not be obliged to list for the General System of Pensions for the next 3 years from the validity of this law, notwithstanding the provisions of this paragraph, who voluntarily decide to list General pension system may do so. (sic)

During this period, the National Government will evaluate the results of the implementation of this paragraph and will present to the Congress the initiatives that it considers viable to facilitate access to "Economic" protection schemes for the old age of this population strip. "

Article 3o. Vigency. This law governs from the date of its publication and expressly repeals any previous provision that is contrary to it. "

III. THE LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURE

The legislative process of the proposed bill was as follows:

3.1. The project was presented to the Secretariat of the Senate of the Republic on July 24, 2007 by the Minister of Finance and Public Credit, Dr. Oscar Ivan Zuluaga, Escobar and by the Minister of Social Protection, Dr. Diego Palacio Betancourt [1]. The same was published in the Congress Gazette number 345 of July 26, 2007 [2].

3.2. The bill was referred to the Seventh Constitutional Constitutional Commission of the Senate of the Republic, whose board of directors appointed Senator Ivan Diaz Mateus as the rapporteur [3]

3.3. By communication of 6 September 2007, sent to the Presidents of the Senate of the Republic and the House of Representatives, as well as to the Presidents of the Committee of the European Communities, the President of the Republic submitted an application for urgent procedure in relation to Bill 026 of 2007 Senate, 121 of 2007, Chamber, for which two incisos are added to the article 204 of Law 100 of 1993 as amended by article 10 of Law 1122 of 2007 and a paragraph to article 19 of Act 100 of 1993 as amended by article 6or Act 797 of 2003. " In view of the above, the boards of the Senate of the Republic and of the House of Representatives by means of resolutions dated both on September 11, 2007, authorized their Committees Septimas to jointly hold with its counterpart of the other Corporation, in order to give first debate to the aforementioned bill [4].

3.4 The paper report and the text proposed for the first joint debate in joint sessions presented by Senator Ivan Diaz Mateus was published in the Congress Gazette number 460 of 20 September 2007 [5]. The report, the amendments and the text proposed for the first joint session presented by the Representative to the Pompilio Avendano Lopera House was published in the Gazette of the Congress number 528 of October 18, 2007 [6].

3.3. According to the substantiation report signed by the Secretary of the Seventh Constitutional Constitutional Commission of the Senate of the [7], the bill was discussed and approved in a joint session of the Committees. Seventh of the Senate of the Republic and of the House of Representatives, which took place on November 28, 2007. Similarly, this report states that the approval of the project was previously announced to the Joint Committee on the Joint Committee at the meetings of 30 October 2007 and 21 November of the same year, in accordance with Article 8 of the Legislative 01 of 2003.

3.4. In the second debate in the Senate of the Republic, Senators Dilian Francisca Toro Torres and Ivan Diaz Mateus were appointed to the Senate. For the same purposes, the House of Representatives was appointed by the Representatives Pompilio Avendaño Lopera and Elias Raad Hernández. The presentation for the second debate in the Senate of the Republic was published in the Congress Gazette number 637 of 2007 [8]. For the House of Representatives, the presentation for the second debate was published in the Congress Gazette number 636 of 2007 [9].

3.5. According to the certificate in the substantiation report signed by the Secretary General of the Senate of the Republic 10], the bill was approved in the plenary session of that Legislative Corporation on 11 September. December 2007. The same report states that the draft was announced in the plenary session of which the Minutes number 26 of 10 December 2007.

3.4. According to the substantiation report signed by the Secretary General of the House of Representatives[11], the bill was approved in plenary session of that legislative corporation held on December 11, 2001. 2007, entered in Act 090 of the same date. In the same vein, the report states that the approval of the project was carried out prior to its announcement, which was carried out at the plenary session on 10 September 2007, according to Acta 089 of the same date.

3.5. Through his office of 18 December 2007, received at the Administrative Department of the Presidency of the Republic on December 27 of the same year, the Secretary General of the Senate of the Republic referred the bill to the President of the Republic for its executive sanction[12].

3.6. By trade on January 4, 2008, the bill was returned by the National Government to the President of the Senate of the Republic, without the corresponding executive sanction, for objections of unconstitutionality. The content of the objections was based on that dependency on 9 January 2008[13].

3.7. By letter of 28 April 2008, Senator Dillian Francisca Toro Torres and Representative Elias Raad presented a report on the presidential objections to the bill, in which they requested their rejection. This report appears published in the Congress gazettes numbers 200 of 2008 and 199 of the same year[14].

3.8. According to a report of substantiation signed by the Secretary General (e) of the House of Representatives, the previous report was considered and approved by the Plenary of the House of Representatives on 13 May 2008, prior to its announcement in the plenary session of the day 6 May 2008[15].

3.9 According to a report of substantiation signed by the Secretary General of the Senate of the Republic, this legislative corporation considered and approved the report of objections at its plenary session on 21 May 2008, prior to its announcement in the session. Plenary on May 20, 2008[16].

3.10. Dismissed the objections by the Congress of the Republic, by way of office dated May 28, 2008, received in this judicial corporation on June 6 of the same year, the President of the Senate of the Republic referred to the Court the to decide on its exequability[17].

IV. CONTENT OF THE PRESIDENTIAL OBJECTIONS

By communication of four (4) January of two thousand eight (2008), received at the presidency of the Senate of the Republic on 9 January of the same year, the President of the Republic, with the signature of the Minister of Finance and Public Credit, presented formally memorial of presidential objections for unconstitutionality with respect to article 1o of Bill 026 of 2007 Senate, 121 of 2007 House, for which two incisos are added to the article 204 of the 1993 Act 100 modified by the article 10 of Act 1122 of 2007 and a paragraph to article 19 of Act 100 of 1993 as amended by article 6or Act 797 of 2003, objections that were declared unfounded by the Senate and House plenaries.

These objections were raised as follows:

a) Violation of article 154 of the Political Constitution.

Apparently from the National Government, article 1 of the draft law that objects to article 154 of the Political Constitution is not known, according to which they can only be handed down or reformed at the initiative of the Government the laws referred to in numerals 3, 7, 9, 11 and 22 and literals a), b) and e), from the numeral 19 of the article 150; those that order participations in the national income or transfers of the same; those that authorize contributions or State subscriptions to industrial or commercial enterprises and those that decree exemptions from taxes, contributions or national taxes.

In the present case, using this right of exclusive legislative initiative, the National Government, through the Minister of Finance and Public Credit and the Minister of Social Protection, presented a bill for consideration. Nevertheless, what was intended with this executive initiative did not come to correspond with what was finally approved by the Congress of the Republic. That is to say, in the government's view, the approved version of Bill 026 of 2007 Senate, 121 of 2007, did not count with its endorsement.

Abounding in explanations, the government claims that as it did in the explanatory statement, the bill pursued the purpose of " redistributing the impact that was generated with the increase of 0.5 points of the ordered health contribution. by Law 1122 of 2007 on the income of pensioners. The formula presented by the government reduced the impact of the increase established by Law 1122 of 2007 for some pensioners, leaving them the same for others and increasing them for the rest. " It adds that " the increase of 0.5 percentage points in the solidarity contributions of the pensioners defined by Law 1122 of 2007, would generate resources of the order of $70 billion a year, which are indispensable to complement the financing of universal health coverage. " The government's proposal, he says, sought to make a redistribution of this increase within the pensioners without affecting this amount.

Explaining the economic consequences that for each of the pensioners could come to mean his initiative, he argues that the increase of the 0.5 decreed by the Law 112 of 2007 would generate the resources for the The overall amount mentioned above, " individually the impact was not substantial, as the additional contribution proposed ranged from $1,928 per month to $75,642 for those who become more than twenty-five (25) smml, in the latter case representing less than 1% of your monthly income. In other words, a greater contribution of solidarity was sought from those pensioners who in turn receive a higher subsidy from the State for the payment of their pension tables. "

Now, the letter of objections continues to indicate that during the passage of the bill in the Congress of the Republic, both the joint commissions that had the first debate, and the plenary sessions of both legislative chambers introduced substantial modifications to the bill, as they " approved the elimination of the increase of 0.5% ordered by Law 1122 of 2007 notwithstanding the disagreement expressed by the Government during all the stages of the legislative procedure, since it was always stated that this deletion was totally inconvenient since it compromised the goals of universal coverage raised by the same Congress of the Republic and the financial sustainability of the same ones, given that the Subsidized Regime in Health would be ceasing to receive resources This decision was being delayed by the membership of 300,000 poor and vulnerable people without the capacity to pay. In this way, he concluded, the government initiative was distorted.

The government continues to put in place that in the matter of the bill, which was about parafiscal contributions as a form of tribute, its endorsement was necessary. And in support of this statement it brings to collation several pronouncements of this Corporation in which it has been recognized that the contributions to the System of Social Security in Health are a form of parafiscal contribution B_aj"> [18]. In addition, it cites Judgment C-1707 of 2000, in which the Court affirmed that "the governmental legislative initiative is not limited to the act of the mere presentation of the bill", but " must be understood as that public function that seeks to promote the process of formation of laws, not only from their initiation but also in subsequent instances of parliamentary processing "[19].

Thus, the Government concludes that " taking into account that the National Government has not only granted its endorsement for today's article 1o of the bill, it has stated through the Deputy Minister General of the Ministry of Hacienda y Crédito Público in its interventions in the sessions of the Joint Commissions and of the respective Plenaries their disagreement with that provision, it is clear, therefore, that what is established in the article 1o of the initiative is unconstitutional ".

b) Violation of article 48 of the Political Constitution

Reminds the Government that under Article 48 of the Charter, " Social Security is a mandatory public service that will be provided under the direction, coordination and control of the State, in accordance with the principles of efficiency, universality and solidarity, in the terms established by law. " He adds that this Corporation has limited the scope of the principle of solidarity, noting that it " runs in charge and in favor of every community member ..., constituting a pattern of social behavior of reciprocal function, acquiring a special relevance as regards the cooperation of all partners in creating conditions favourable to the construction and maintenance of a dignified life by the same ... "[20]. In addition, in matters of health, this principle of solidarity " implies a redistribution of resources, economic, administrative, human, institutional, etc., with which the Social Security System in Health counts, so that everyone can have access to it and get attention at different levels referred to "[21].

Explained the above, the statement of objections states that the exemption which came to be enshrined in Article 1 of the draft law objecting to the principle of solidarity, to the extent that it is being excluded ' from an important sector of the population of funding required for universal coverage to be achieved in accordance with the 2007 Law 1122 of the General System of Social Security in Health, still having the the obligation to contribute to such financing, thereby failing to protect an equally important sector; critically vulnerable, considering that with the resources referred to in article 204 of the Law 100 of 1993, which is intended to reform, the universal coverage of the Subsidized Regime is financed "Health, that is, the possibility of access to health services by the poorest and most vulnerable population in the country." The Government, then, recalls that this Judicial Corporation recognized that " while it is true that the pensioners are subject to special protection by the State, it is also true that their condition does not justify excluding them from the payment of contributions in the health based on the principle of solidarity "[22].

c) Violation of article 13 of the Political Constitution.

Finally, the government accuses the violation of article 13 by article 1o of the objecting bill. This is because it exempts from the payment of the 0.5% additional to 12% on the amount of the pension system as a contribution to the General System of Social Security in Health to all pensioners, without there being a valid reason for such exemption. To explain this valid reason gap, it exposes the following:

" There is no reason to exclude the entire population from the payment, because as above it was established, the Court declared the increase of the 0.5% provided in Law 1122 of 2007 to the Constitution. Even more, I consider this a legitimate measure because the universal coverage of health services is financed with these resources. In this way, all people and citizens have a duty to contribute to the financing of the state's expenses and burdens, despite the observance of the principle of equity, which materializes in the demand to contribute more to has and vice versa. The exemption made by Article 1o of the initiative violates the above, since it grants privileges to a certain sector without making any classification, moving away from any legitimate motive for this, putting in a situation of inequality those people who are not penalized, they must list 12.5% to the General System of Social Security in Health in front of those who, for the simple fact of being pensioners, must pay only 12% ".

Abundant in explanations, the government maintains that the factual situation of those who are pensioners and those who are not, from an economic point of view, is the same. So there is no reason to exonerate them from the increase of 0.5 in the health contribution, since they have the same needs as those citizens who have equal income levels, but who are not pensioners. Even, the government says, they may have fewer responsibilities and expenses in their capacity than the labor force. He adds that " it is different to consider establishing differentiated contributions because of the income that the pensioners receive, in such a way that each one contributes according to their economic capacity, as proposed by the National Government in its time ".

V. CONTENT OF THE INSISTENCE OF THE CONGRESS OF THE REPUBLIC

By memorial of April 28, 2008, the Accidental Commission designated for the study of presidential objections presented the report that would be debated in the plenary sessions of both houses and approved by them. The summary of the arguments put forward by the Commission is as follows:

a) In relation to the violation of article 154 of the Political Constitution:

Regarding the objection of unconstitutionality by the National Government for the alleged violation of Article 154 of the Charter, the congressional objections report recalls that This higher standard consists of four incissos, the third of which indicates that "The Chambers may introduce modifications to the projects submitted by the Government". He adds that this Judicial Corporation has spoken out "expanding this constitutional provision," and that he has explained that the Congressmen within their legislative function can present modifications and additions to any bill, "Faculty is applied in the study of all the bills independent of the origin of the project, such is the case of the projects of initiative of the National Government", with the only condition that the modifications " save a relation or connection reasonable and systematic with the themes proposed in the project "[23].

Thus, the report of the Accidental Commission concludes that this first objection should not proceed, " since the Constitutional position is overwhelming in the face of the possibility that the Congressmen may introduce modifications to the text of the The draft law presented by the National Government, which has had an exclusive government initiative, which proceeds as soon as they relate to the issues that are being dealt with in the draft law and which are presented in the debates held in the exercise of its legislative function ".

b) In relation to the violation of Articles 13 and 48 of the Political Constitution.

In what has to do with the objection of unconstitutionality presented by the violation of articles 13 and 48 of the Constitution, the report presented by the Accidental Commission states that what the Congress of the Republic sought when modifying the bill presented by the government, was not to ignore the budgetary needs required to address universal coverage of the system Social Security in Health, but " continue with the spirit of the bill presented by the National Government, which intends not to injure or undermine the income of the workers and much less decrease the income of the pensioners. "

Deepening the above explanation, adds the report that " if the intention of the project was to correct the shortcomings of Law 1122 of 2007, by establishing that the 0.5% increase in the price was In the case of the employer and therefore the payment by the employees is not appropriate, it was established that the pensioners will not assume the additional 0.5% in order not to tax their mesad in greater proportion. "

Based on the foregoing considerations, the report of the accidental commission created to study the presidential objections to the bill concludes by proposing " to be in the text approved by the honorable Congress of the Republic and not to accept the objections that the National Government submitted for unconstitutionality. "

VI. CITIZEN INTERVENTION

According to the report of the General Secretariat of this Corporation, no citizen interventions were produced during the list-fixing term[24].

VII. CONCEPT OF THE NATION ' S ATTORNEY GENERAL

[La Nacion] In the legal opportunity provided for, the Attorney General of the Nation, Dr. Edgardo Jose Maya Villazon, asked the Court to consider the presidential objections of the reference to be unfounded, and consequently declare the Article 1o of Bill No. 026 of 2007 Senate, 121 of 2007, House, by which two incites are added to article 204 of the amended Law 100 of 1993 by article 10 of Law 1122 of 2007 and a point to Article 19 of Act 100 of 1993 as amended by Article 6or Act 797 of 2003.

On the basis of this request, I set out the following considerations:

First of all, the tax view says that the article objected did not require the endorsement of the National Government. The above for how much, in its opinion, the article 154 above, in relation to the governmental initiative, poses the following situations: " i) the one referred to in paragraph 1 of the aforementioned constitutional provision, which gives the National Government a general clause that allows it to present to the Congress of the Republic any kind of projects on different subjects; ii) the one set out in the second indent, when adduce: " only the laws referred to in numerals 3, 7, 9, 11 and 22 may be dictated or reformed at the initiative of the Government; (a), (b) and (e), of item 19 of the item 150; those ordering participations in the national income or transfers thereof; those that authorize contributions or subscriptions of the State to industrial or commercial enterprises and those that Tax exemptions, contributions or national fees. " Which means that in these cases the initiative is private and exclusive to the executive and, iii) the consecrated in the third indent of the necessary constitutional provision as to that the Chambers will be able to make changes to the projects submitted by the Government. "

As to the precept of paragraph 2o, the Attorney General considers that the exclusive executive initiative with respect to the matters mentioned above, also implies that " the modifications and additions that substantially affect the initiative require the authorization or endorsement of the National Government, " which does not happen in cases that fall under the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 154 of the Charter, in which all the changes that the congress wants to introduce, without the need for governmental endorsement, always and when the rule of the unit of matter is respected.

In the present case, the Attorney General believes that the bill that the government presented to Congress related to " changes to the social security system in health, especially the amount and distribution of the contributions, a matter that is not in the list of the topics referred to in the second paragraph of article 154 of the Political Constitution, so the modifications to it did not require the endorsement of the executive ". (Original underscore). That is to say, apparently from the Public Ministry, the government confuses the exclusive initiative with the general initiative, and therefore without a bill it is of its own initiative, so it does not correspond to any of the matters taxatively mentioned by the constitution in article 154, "ipso facto becomes one that requires endorsement", interpretation that is unconstitutional.

On the other hand, the tax view argues that the reduction of 0.5% of the contributions of pensioners to the Social Security System in Health constitutes an exemption, since the exemptions imply that, at the will of the legislator, a group of persons who fall under the general rules imposing a tax obligation, are subtracted from the tax in question[25].

Explained the foregoing, the concept of the Attorney General comes to remind that it is proper to the legislative procedure that the modifications, additions and deletions to the bills can be introduced by the chambers, which only find the limit set by Article 158 of the Charter; therefore, they may even take the form of new articles, provided that they unequivocally respect the principle of unity of material. This possibility, he recalls, is due to the principle of consistency that governs the legislative process.

Going on to refer to the other objections raised by the government, the Public Ministry states that the bill does not violate articles 13, 7, 48, of the Political Constitution. In this regard, he says that the government is wrong when it states that the principle of solidarity is unknown because, when the obligation of pensioners to contribute an additional 0.5% to the Health System is eliminated, it is impossible to achieve the universal coverage of that system. It seems to be from the Attorney General that the government's appreciation is wrong, because " the state's obligation to comply with the mandates of Article 48 of the Political Constitution, and in a manner In particular, the health coverage of the subsidized regime cannot be downloaded into a single source of financing, such as the contributions of the pensioners. He adds that the contribution made today by the pensioners equivalent to 12% of their pension is very significant, considering that the employees are listed with 12.5% of which their employer assumes 8.5%. Thus, the fiscal view concludes that if the decrease in the percentage of contributions affects public revenues, it is up to the State to seek another form of financing.

Finally, as for the alleged violation of the principle of equality, it holds the fiscal view that is not present either. Since the pensioners are not in the same situation as the other persons listed in the system, ' the legislator may take differentiated decisions in relation to those amounts, without thereby infringing the right to the equality ".

VIII. CONSIDERATIONS AND FUNDAMENTALS

1. Competence

This Corporation is competent to hear about the presidential objections to unconstitutionality filed by the President of the Republic against Article 1 of Bill No. 026 of 2007 Senate, 121 of 2007 Chamber, by which two points are added to Article 204 of the Act 100 of 1993 as amended by article 10 of Law 1122 of 2007 and an article 19 of the 1993 Act 100 modified by the article 6or Act 797 of 2003, as provided for in Articles 167 and 241-8 of the Political Constitution.

2. Verification of the constitutionality of the processing of objections

As the constitutional case law has pointed out, " the examination of form in the framework of presidential objections should be limited to the processing of the objections themselves and not to the processing of the law objected to[26]. The procedure for the approval of the law is therefore open to actions of unconstitutionality for vices so that they can be presented within the year following their enactment[27]"[28

2.1. The processing of presidential objections and the insistence of the Congress of the Republic

2.1.1 Opportunity of objections.

a. As outlined above, the draft law of the reference was discussed and passed in joint session of the Senate of the Republic and the House of Representatives, which took place on November 28, 2007. Subsequently, the project was approved at the plenary session of the Senate of the Republic of 11 December 2007 and in the plenary session of the House of Representatives of the same day[29]

b) As was also said before, through its trade of 18 December 2007, received at the Administrative Department of the Presidency of the Republic on December 27, the same year, the Secretary General of the Senate of the Republic referred the bill to the President of the Republic for his executive sanction[30].

(c) By trade on January 4, 2008, the government returned the bill to the Senate Presidency, without the respective executive sanction, for reasons of unconstitutionality. The content of the objections was based on that dependency on 9 January 2008, as shown in a handwritten note in the book's main notebook.

d) Pursuant to article 166 of the Political Constitution, the Government has six (6) business days[31] and complete to return any objections Project that has no more than twenty articles. Bill No. 026 of 2007 Senate, 121 of 2007 House, has three (3) articles, so in application of the constitutional precept, the Government had up to six (6) working days to file objections.

e) The bill was received at the Presidency of the Republic on 27 December 2007. As these are complete days, the 6-day term should begin to be counted from December 28, 2007. The lapse for the submission of objections would expire on 8 January 2009. However, for those dates, the Congress of the Republic was in recess, so Article 197 of Law 5 of 1992-the Rules of Procedure of the Congress-was applicable, according to which, in the Case of presidential objections, "If the chambers have gone into recess, the President of the Republic shall publish the draft objectionable within the constitutional terms", without imposing the return of the bill to Congress.

In the same sense article 166 of the Political Constitution reads as follows:

" Article 166. The Government has six days to return any project with objections when it does not consist of more than twenty items; ten days, when the project contains twenty-one to fifty articles; and up to twenty days when the articles are more than fifty.

" If the indicated terms have passed, the Government has not returned the project with objections, the President must sanction and promulgate it. If the chambers enter recess within those terms, the President will have a duty to publish the sanctioned project or objectionable within those deadlines. " (Refers and underscores outside the original)

In compliance with the above and being within the constitutional term, the Presidency of the Republic of the Republic of the Republic of the Republic of Korea, dated January 4, 2008, published the draft objecting to the Official Journal number 46,861. Indeed, the full text of the objections is published first and next in that Journal[32].

It is to be noted that this Corporation has endorsed the previous procedure in similar cases. See:

" In this case, the term for the sanction of the project or the presentation of objections by the government, passed and had due when the Chambers were in recess. This does not mean, that in this case, the term provided for by the Constitution for the purposes of the presentation of objections could be extended until the Congress starts its regular session again, since according to provided for in Article 197 2) of Law 5 of 1992-Rules of Procedure of the Congress-, " If the chambers have gone into recess, the President of the Republic shall publish the project objected to within the constitutional terms. " On the basis of this provision, the presidential objections to Bill 258 of 2003 House, 121 of 2002 Senate, were published in the Official Journal number 45,4416 of 30 December 2003 ". (Auto 119 of 2004, for which the nullity of Judgment C-700 of 2004 was declared)[33].

Based on the foregoing considerations, the Court concludes that the presidential objections to the draft law of the reference were timely and published.

2.1.2 Discussion and approval procedure for objections.

f) The text of the objections was received at the Presidency of the Senate of the Republic on January 9, 2008[34]. It was published in the Congress Gazette number 06 of January 29, 2008[35]. The sending of presidential objections to the Presidency of the Senate of the Republic to be studied by the plenaries offers no qualms of unconstitutionality, as has been admitted by this Corporation, " since it has been imposed since The Constitutional Court declared inexequible the apart from article 179 of the Law 5th of 1992 that obliged to return, not to the plenary, but to the permanent constitutional commission of the chambers, the objections partial to the bills "[36].

[g] By appointing the Senate and House boards, the accidental commission charged with making the study and issuing a concept on presidential objections was made up of Senator Dilian Francisca Toro Torres and the representative of the Senate. to the House Elias Raad.

h) The publication of the presidential objections report to the bill of reference in the Senate of the Republic and in the House of Representatives was made at the Congress Gazette numbers 200, 2008 and 199 of the same year[38], respectively.

i) The announcement of the vote on the report of the presidential objections in the House of Representatives was made at the plenary session on May 6, 2008. This is stated in the Act No. 106 of that same date, published in the Congress Gazette number 326 of June 6, 2008. The announcement text is as follows:

" Address of the Presidency, Dr. Berner Leon Zambrano Erazo: