convinced of the importance of updating and strengthening mechanisms that contribute to the development of this process and the need to implement technical and scientific cooperation programs that have an effective impact on the economic and social progress of their respective countries,

5.4.3.6. In compliance with article 8or Legislative Act 01 of 2003 and as stated in the Act number 26 of December 10, 2009, published in the Congress Gazette number 58 of February 26, 2008, the project was announced as follows: "The projects to discuss and vote at the next Plenary Session are the following (...) Bill of Law No. 18 of 2007 Senate." At the end of the session it reads: "Being 9:30 p. Mr President, the Presidency is meeting and convening for the day on Tuesday 11 December 2007 at 11:00 a.m. m.".

However, the discussion of the bill was not conducted at the session on December 11, 2007, as stated in Act No. 27 of that date, published in the Congress Gazette number 59 of February 26, 2007. 2008; however, it was again announced as follows: "The Secretariat announces the projects to be discussed and approved at the following session (...) Legislative Act Projects for Second Debate (...) Number 18 of 2007 Senate ". At the end of the session reads:" Being 9:40 p. Mr President, the President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, was meeting with the President-in-Office of the Council. m. ".

5.4.3.7. According to the Act No. 28 of December 12, 2007, published in the Congress Gazette number 60 of February 26, 2008, the project was approved on that date by the majority of the 93 Senators, according to ratifies the certification issued by the Secretary General of the Senate of the Republic (certification by the Secretary General of the Senate).

5.4.4. Procedure before the House of Representatives

5.4.4.1. The draft law of the reference was established with the number 236 of 2008 in the House of Representatives. The keynote for the first debate is published in the Congress Gazette number 150 of April 17, 2008 and the appointed speaker was the House Representative Fabiola Olaya Rivera.

5.4.4.2. The bill was announced for the first debate in the joint session of the Second Senate and House of Representatives Committees, as noted in the Minutes of May 6, 2008, in which it : for the discussion and vote of bills in the Second Commission of the House of Representatives, of bills (...) Bill number 236 of 2008 House, 18 of 2007 Senate (...) ". And at the end it reads: (Congress Gazette number 631 of September 12, 2008).

However, as stated in Act No. 02 of May 7, 2008, in the joint session of the Second Senate and House of Representatives Committees published in the Congress Gazette number 632 of 12 September 2008, the discussion and approval of the bill under study was not carried out and was again announced: " Announcement of bills to be approved in the first debate at the next session of the Second Commission of the House of Representatives, to comply with article 8 or Legislative Act number 1 of 2003 (...) Bill number 236 of 2008 House, 18 of 2007 Senate, (...) " and at the end reads " (...) The President of the Second Commission makes use of the word of the House, (...) Let me quote the honourable Members of the Second House Committee for the next Tuesday, May 13, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. ".

In the same way it was said that despite the visit of some Canadian parliamentarians, the ordinary session would be held on May 13, 2008. It was noted: "on Tuesday 13 will come a delegation of 19 Canadian Parliamentarians, who on official visit plan to meet with the Second Committee of the Senate and the Second Committee of the House in informal meeting, prior to the session. official, Mr. President".

However, on May 13, 2008, the bill was not approved. According to certification by the Deputy Secretary of the Second Chamber of Representatives of the House of Representatives on Tuesday 13 May 2008, no official session of the Commission was held as soon as the official visit of the Commission had been planned. Parliamentarians from the Republic of Canada.

Therefore, the bill was passed for the first debate on May 14, 2008, as contained in Act No. 26 of that date, published in the Congress Gazette number 591 of September 3, 2008, without it being announced again for that session.

5.4.4.3. The presentation for the second debate to the draft of the law of the reference was published in the Congress Gazette number 332 of June 9, 2008, with the presentation of the same Representative to the House, Fabiola Olaya Rivera.

5.4.4.4. The vote announcement in the House Plenary of the bill, mandated by Legislative Act 01 2003, was initially announced at the June 11, 2008 session in the following terms: " the following projects are announced for the plenary session on Tuesday, June 17 at 3:00 p.m. or for the session where bills or legislative acts are debated for the following session (...) for second debate (...) Bill number 236 of 2008 House, 018 of 2007 Senate. ". (Act number 117 of June 11, 2008, which was published in the Congress Gazette number 422 of July 17, 2008).

5.4.4.5. As stated in the Minutes number 118 of the session of June 17, 2008 (Congress Gazette number 324 of July 17, 2008), the House of Representatives ' Plenary approved the bill of the House of Representatives. "by the majority of those present in ordinary voting, the Ponance for Second Debate", as ratified by the certification issued on 18 December 2008 by the Secretary General of the Chamber of Representatives.

5.4.5. Constitutionality of the procedure given to Law 1254 of 2008

After the previous count, the Court passes to analyze the constitutionality of the approval procedure of Law 1254 of 2008.

5.4.5.1. To begin, this Court finds that the bill was published in Congress before it was given a course in the respective Commission (art. 157-1 C. P.), approved in the first debate in the corresponding Commissions of each Chamber (art. 157-2 C. P.), approved in second debate in the Plenary of each Chamber (art. 157-3 C. P.) and received the due presidential sanction (art. href="policy_constitution_1991_pr005.html#157"> 157-4 C. P.).

5.4.5.2. Between the first and second debates in each of the Chambers passed a time of not less than eight days, as ordered by article 160 constitutional, as well: first approval The debate in the Second Committee of the Senate took place on November 7, 2007, while the approval at the Plenary Session occurred on December 12, 2007. Similarly, the approval in the first debate in the Second Commission of the House occurred on 14 May 2008 and the second debate took place on 17 June 2008.

5.4.5.3. On the other hand, between the approval of the bill in the Senate (December 12, 2007) and the initiation of the debate in the House of Representatives (April 17, 2008), a period of not less than 15 days passed, as ordered by the Senate. Article 160 of the Political Charter.

5.4.5.4. To the above, it is added that the sessions of the Commission and the Plenary were carried out with the fulfillment of the required quorum and the project was approved by a majority of the Congressmen in attendance, as ratified by the certifications issued by the respective Secretaries-General of the Permanent Constitutional Commissions and the Plenary Assembly of each Chamber.

5.4.5.5. However, this Chamber notes that the requirement of the announcement set out in Article 160 Constitutional in the Second House Committee of the House of Representatives was not met.

5.4.6. Compliance with the announcement requirement of Constitutional Article 160 , as amended by Article 8or Legislative Act 01 of 2003

Article 8or Legislative Act 01, 2003 provides the following:

" Nowill be put to a vote in session other than that previously announced. The notice that a project will be put to the vote will be given by the Presidency of each Chamber or Commission in session other than the one in which the vote will take place. "

The end of the rule, in the light of constitutional jurisprudence, is to prevent Congressmen from being surprised by projects whose debate and approval ignored that it was going to take place_[3]. According to the court, the purpose of the announcement is to " allow the Congressmen to know in advance which bills or reports of presidential objections will be put to the vote, assuming full knowledge of them and avoiding, therefore, that they are caught with bad votes. "_[4].

The case law has indicated that it is the duty of the legislative bodies to present the announcements in a session prior to the one in which the plan is to be put to the vote. The quality of the announcement, the Court has insisted, imposes that it be established with certainty-determined or determinable-the date on which the vote must take place.

In this measure, the previous announcement is demand established by the Congress itself to strengthen the democratic principle, respect for the parliamentary minorities and the publicity and transparency of the process. legislative "_[5], all of which leads to a " proper formation of the democratic will within the Legislative Chambers. "_[6].

In the same way, the Court has recognized that this requirement contributes to the exercise of political control by the community, since " under the influence of this requirement increases the possibilities of monitoring citizen to the bills, which produces a beneficial result of expanding the margins of popular control to the performance of the Congress. "_[7].

According to its normative configuration, the constitutional jurisprudence has reviewed the following characteristics:

" (i) First of all, the announcement must always be made and its realization is inexcusable for the approval of every project, both in the Commissions and in the Senate and Chamber of Representatives. As a result, the lack of prior notice in any of those instances configures a vice in the procedure of forming the law.

(ii) Second, the announcement must be made by the Presidency of the respective Chamber or Commission, in a previous session and different from that in which the vote is taken. On this requirement the Court has explained that "there is no sacramental formula or textual phrase that the Congress should use to make the notice, provided that the expression used unequivocally conveys the intention of the table." directive to put a particular bill to the vote in a future and defined session. "_[8]

Concordante with the above, the jurisprudence has found constitutionally admissible expressions such as "consider", "debate", "ad", among others, used in the framework of the legislative sessions, whenever it wants to they can reasonably be inferred that the requirement is referred to in the final paragraph of article 160 of the Policy Charter_[9]

(iii) Third, the date of the vote must be true, which means that it must be determined or at least clearly determinable. On several occasions the Court has referred to the scope of this requirement, to warn that " the Legislative Chambers must point out the precise date of the session in which the discussion and vote of the bill will take place or, failing that, it will be possible to establish compliance with that requirement when the context of the session in which the announcement was made is possible to conclude, unequivocally, the date on which the debate and approval of the initiative will be verified corresponding. "_[10].

Accordingly, when the announcement is not made expressly for a defined or determined date, the annotated requirement will be fulfilled as long as the "context" of the session in which the announcement was made is It is possible to establish, with absolute clarity, the date on which the debate and the vote on a (determinable) project will take place. This leaves the manifest excessive ritual to privilege the principle of instrumentality, according to which " the procedural forms do not have a value in themselves and must be interpreted teleologically at the service of an end noun. "_[11].

(iv) Finally, a project cannot be voted on in a session other than that for which it has previously been announced. This requirement, which is directly related to the above, seeks to provide a minimum of certainty to the Congressmen and the political community in general about the time when the debate and vote on a project will be fulfilled.

Now, when for any reason the debate and the vote are not held in the announced session, the Court has pointed out that it is necessary to remake a new announcement, in the same terms and conditions provided for in the article 160 Higher, as only this way ensures transparency in democratic deliberation; is what the case law has called "ad chain". Regarding the importance and scope of such a requirement, in Judgment C-933 of 2006 this Corporation held the following:

" When voting on a project is postponed indefinitely, so it does not take place in the session for which it was announced, it is the duty of the boards to continue with the ad chain; that is, to reiterate the The announcement of the vote in each of the sessions that precede the one in which the approval of the plan is actually carried out, since " there is no other constitutional instrument to guarantee the effective realization of the end that is intended to be satisfied by the formality of the notice, which-as has been seen-consists of to prevent Congressmen and the community in general from being surprised with bad or surreptitious votes. " If this does not occur, that is, if the temporary sequence of the notice is not met when for reasons of legislative practice the debate and vote on a project is postponed indefinitely, it is understood that the vote was held in a session other than the one that was announced, in violation of the requirement foreseen in the article 160 of the Policy Letter.

In particular, the Court has pointed out that, despite presenting the phenomenon of breaking the chain of announcements regarding a bill whose vote has been postponed indefinitely, there is no sign of a vice. of unconstitutionality due to lack of knowledge of the article 160 Constitutional, when in the session immediately before the one in which the approval of the project is surfed, " the same was specifically announced to be put to the vote in that session. " If the latter has no occurrence, that is, if in addition to breaking the chain of announcements the project postponed indefinitely is voted without having announced such fact in the previous session, it is understood that the requirement of "ad" prior to the article 160 Superior ". (Underline Underline).

In this order of ideas, consider the Chamber that when the announcement has been made for a certain or certain date, it is in it when the debate and the vote of the respective project will have to be brought forward. And when for some circumstance it does not happen on that date it becomes essential to make a new announcement, because otherwise a vice of legislative procedure will be configured for violation of the final paragraph of article 160 of the Constitution.

5.5. ANNOUNCEMENTS MADE IN THE PROCESS OF LAW 1254 OF 2008

In light of these requirements, an analysis of the announcements made in each of the Legislative Cells will be performed in the subject under review.

5.5.1. Announcement made in Senate Committee: The bill was initially announced at the session on October 30, 2007, as stated in Act No. 7 of this date to be discussed and approved on October 31, 2007.

However, in the session of October 31, 2007, the discussion was not held and the bill was again announced in the following terms: " order of the President of the Second Senate of the Republic," President, Senator Carlos Emiro Barriga Penaranda (...) quotes for Wednesday, 7 November at 10:00 a.m. m. for projects ".

Effectively, the bill was discussed and approved at the November 7 session by the Senate Second Committee (Congress Gazette number 669 of December 18, 2007).

In this opportunity, the comprehensive reading of the Congress Gazette , where the Senate First Committee announcements are contained, allows us to note that: (i) there was no break of the notices for the fact that it is observed from the consecutive record, that this was successively renewed when the approval of the bill was not possible for the date that had been determined and (ii) the plan was announced for a certain date and approved on the previously announced date.

5.5.2. Announcement in Plenary of the Senate

As stated in the Minutes number 26 of December 10, 2009, the project was announced on Tuesday, December 11, 2007, at 11:00 a.m. m.

However, as the discussion of the bill was not conducted at the session on 11 December 2007, as stated in the Minutes number 27 of that date, it was again announced as follows: " Theannounces the "Projects that will be discussed and approved in the following session (...) Legislative Act Projects for Second Debate (...) Bill of Law No. 18 of 2007 Senate." At the end of the session reads: " Being 9:40 p. Mr President, the President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, was meeting with the President-in-Office of the Council. m. ".

The bill was passed on December 12, 2007, as stated in the 28th Act of December 12, 2007. (Congress Gazette number 60 of February 26, 2008).

As can then be concluded, the announcement made in the Senate Plenary meets the requirements laid down in Article 8or Legislative Act 01 of 2003 for: (i) the announcement was made in prior to deliberation and voting; (ii) was made at a different date when the project was debated and approved in Plenary, and (iii) the date of the debate and the vote was determined.

5.6. EXISTENCE OF A PROCEDURAL DEFECT IN THE COMMISSION ' S SECOND COMMITTEE: LACK OF CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE PRIOR ANNOUNCEMENT AND THE VOTE ON THE PROJECT

The bill was announced for the first debate in the joint session of the Second Senate and House of Representatives Committees, as noted in Minutes number 01 of May 6, 2008 for the following day, that is, for May 7 of 2008.

However, as stated in Act No. 02 of May 7, 2008, in the joint session of the Second Senate and House of Representatives Committees published in the Congress Gazette number 632 of 12 September 2008, the discussion and approval of the bill under study was not carried out and was again announced: " Announcement of bills to be approved in the first debate at the next session of the Second Commission of the House of Representatives, to comply with article 8 or Legislative Act number 1 of 2003 (...) Bill number 236 of 2008 House, 18 of 2007 Senate, (...) " and at the end reads " (...) The President of the Second Commission makes use of the word of the House, (...) Let me quote the honourable Members of the Second House Committee for the next Tuesday, May 13, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. ".

Despite the foregoing, on May 13, 2008, the bill was not studied and was finally approved on May 14, 2008, as stated in the Act No. 26 of that date, published in the Congress Gazette number 591 of September 3, 2008, without having been announced again for that session.

How can then be seen, despite the fact that the project had been announced for a certain and certain date, this is 13 May 2008, was actually discussed and approved at the session on Wednesday 14 May 2008, not working in the evidence of the file the previous announcement for this last session.

In the light of the inadequacy of evidence of the legislative procedure in the Second Chamber Commission, by car of 20 February 2009, the Judge-Rapporteur requested the Secretary-General of that Commission to serve as a to report and certify if on 13 May 2008 an ordinary session was held. The certification consists that "On Tuesday, 13 May 2008, no official session of the Second Chamber Commission was held, convened by the then President, Dr. Augusto Posada Sanchez, in a joint session. on Wednesday 7 May 2008. The official session announced was not made in reason of the fact that for that day an official visit of some Parliamentarians of the Republic of Canada had been previewed".

In the light of the foregoing, the Chamber warns the existence of a legal procedural defect. Indeed, the announcement of discussion and vote on the project was for a certain and determined date-13 May 2008-so it was imperative to do so on that date and not a day later-14 May 2008-as it finally happened, without in the test case test for this last session.

In these terms, given the impossibility of approving Bill 236 of 2008, the day indicated by the Presidency of the Second Chamber of the House Committee had to announce it again and point out a new date. Otherwise, the sequence in the ad chain is broken.

In effect, on May 13, the previously announced session was not held, even though the call was for a precise and determined date, and it does not know how the Congressmen could know the date on which they would be taken. again the discussion and vote. As a result, such a situation could only be overcome with a new call in line with the constitutional requirements outlined above. However, as the new call was never made, a vice was configured in the legislative procedure for violation of the final paragraph of article 160 of the Political Charter.

The same factual situation was recently studied by this Corporation in the Auto 171 on April 29, 2009 (Exp. LAT 333), within theReview of the constitutionality of the "Protocol of Ushuaia on Democratic Engagement in Mercosur, the Republic of Bolivia and the Republic of Chile, made in Ushuaia, Argentina, on July 24, 1998", and of the Law of 14 July 2008 of 14 July 2008. ' At that time, the bill that finally was Law 1208 had also been announced in the Second Commission of the House of Representatives by May 13, 2008, but was finally approved on May 14, 2008, as a result of the meeting of the Canadian Congressmen. The Chamber determined that a procedural defect was presented for: "If the bill could not be debated in the session for which it was initially convened, since it was not made before the visit of Canadian Parliamentarians, the Presidency of the Second Committee of the House had the inexcusable duty to make a new announcement and to point out in turn a new date (determined or clearly determinable). However, as this did not happen, it is clear that the temporary sequence of the pre-discussion and vote (ad chain) announcement was broken. "

He further said: " The Court has established the existence of a vice in the approval procedure of Law 1208 of 2008, consisting of the omission of the previous announcement required by the final article 160 of the Constitution, for the session where the project was discussed and approved by the Second House Committee of Representatives, as it was announced to be discussed and approved at the session on Tuesday 13 May 2008 and was actually debated and approved at the session of the day Wednesday, May 14, 2008, without it being in the file's test case for this last session".

Consequently, in the same factual situation the same legal effects should apply in relation to the processing of Law 1254 of 2008. This Chamber will also reiterate the position it has taken in similar cases, such as:

In Judgment C-933 of 2006, the Plena Room of this Corporation was pronounced on the figure known in constitutional jurisprudence as the ad chain with the aim of indicating that When it is not possible to carry out the vote of a certain project according to the indication made in the previous announcement, it is the duty of the board of the corresponding Chamber to reiterate that announcement in order to inform the date back in which the one is to be effectively performed_[12].

So, in the event of a break in the temporal sequence of the notice, a procedural vice could be produced, which means that the bill has been approved on a different date than the one previously announced. However, such a finding does not necessarily lead to the declaration of inexilibility of the bill, since it is credited that in the immediately preceding session "it was specifically announced to be submitted to " The conclusionbe different, so it will be understood that the vote has occurred according to the requirement of the announcement.

In Judgment C-930 , 2005, the Law 943 of 2005 was declared inexequable, " by means of which the " Convention of recognition and validity of diplomas, diplomas and academic certificates of partial studies of higher education between the Government of the Republic of Colombia and the Government of the Republic of Bolivia ", subscribed in the city of La Paz at twenty (20) days of August of the year two thousand one (2001), due to procedural defects related to the voting of the project in a session other than the announced_[13].

In Judgment C-533 of 2004_[14] the constitutionality of "Bill 230 of 2003 House, 031 of 2002 Senate, by which the" Treaty of Mutual Judicial Cooperation between the Government of the Republic of El Salvador and the Government of the Republic of Colombia. The Court stated that in complying with Article 8or Legislative Act 01 of 2003, the Plenary of the House did not specify the exact date on which such a debate would take place and the debate would finally take place. occurred three sessions after the one where the_[15]announcement was made.

In Judgment C-241 of 2006 the Court found the 2005 Law 968 inexequable, " by means of which the Permanent Migratory Statute between Colombia and Colombia is approved. Ecuador ", because there was no clarity about the announcement of the vote on the bill, which led to the Congressmen not having any certainty about the time the votes were going to be held.

In Judgment C-576 2006 was declared inexequable by Law 994 of 2005, " by means of which the Stockholm Convention on Organic Pollutants is approved Persistent ", as there was a breakdown of the ad chain for the project vote.

In the 2007 Auto 013 the Court found a vice in the procedure of Law 1037 of 2006, " for which the 'Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage', approved in the UNESCO General Conference, at its 32nd Meeting, held in Paris and closed on seventeen (17) October of two thousand three (2003) and made and signed in Paris on three (3) November of two thousand three (2003) ", due to the fact that in the Commission Second in the House, the announcement was made without a certain date for the vote. project_[16].

Finally, in the Auto 126 of 2008 a vitio of processing was registered in the approval of Law 1141 of 2007, " by means of which the Convention between the Government of the Republic of Colombia and the Government of the People's Republic of China on Cooperation in Animal Health and Quarantine is approved, " signed in Beijing at 6 days of April of 2005, for the announcement for the second debate in the House of Representatives was held for a certain date, but the approval was fulfilled in the subsequent session, " without during the announced session allusion to the decision to postpone the bill vote ".

As can then be concluded, the case law has established the existence of a procedural defect in cases where, despite having been announced for a given date, the Legislative Cell finally comes to the approval of a Draft law on a date other than the one previously announced.

Nevertheless, the Court observes that the vice identified in the approval procedure of Law 1254 of 2008 is subsable, so that the matter must be returned to the Congress so that it can be corrected. irregularity. In effect, as of Case C-576 of 2006_[17], the Court specified that, in the context of the approval of laws approving international treaties, the vice detected in the process of the process has " The Senate has pronounced itself in a way that the House where the constitutional mandate has to begin the process of the draft laws approving a treaty has expressed in a manner complete his will. Thus, one of the structural stages of the process, v. gr., the approval by the Senate, will have been completed without any vice. "

On the matter in particular, the Court stressed:

" Furthermore, it should be noted that the Court has for about two years offered several sentences warning about the importance of fulfilling this requirement, which has not prevented the vice from repeating itself, more often, in the Senate; that is, in the House of origin of the draft to which it is up to him to decide, first, whether to approve or test the Treaty. This decision, henceforth, must be the expression of a will formed without procedural vices to understand that one of the structural stages of the process of this class of laws has been completed. " (Statement C-576 , 2006).

Thus, the fundamental condition for the vice in which it is made to be subsable is that the Senate of the Republic-the House in which the beginning of the legislative process is in charge-has validly expressed its position. willingness to approve the project put into consideration_[18]. "For the above, the Court says, " a lack of compliance with the aforementioned requirement at a time after the vote in the Senate Plenary is considered an unsanitary vice that will trigger the return of the law. approval of an International Treaty to Congress to remedy the vice and to continue its proceedings from the time it occurred, when the other conditions of subsability are met "_[19].

As a consequence of the foregoing, the paragraph of Article 241 of the Constitution is applicable in this case, according to which " when the Court finds vices of The procedure under which the act is subject to control shall be returned to the authority which has provided it with a view to the amendment of the defect observed. Vice-healed, it will decide on the exequability of the act ".

To this end, similar to what has been decided in previous opportunities_[20], the Court will return the file to the Second Committee of the House of Representatives-because the vice was detected in the procedure set out in that cell. Legislative-to restate the respective procedure. The Second Commission of the House will have a period of thirty (30) days, counted from the notification of this Self in the Presidency of the House, to remedy the vice detected in this providence. Once that irregularity has been remedied, the House of Representatives will have until June 20, 2010 to fulfill the later stages of the legislative process. Then, the President of the Republic will have the deadline provided for in the Charter to sanction the bill (retaining the same numbering of the approval law that is returned) and the President of the Congress will finally send to the Court the href="ley_12124_2008.html#1"> 1254 2008 for you to decide on its exequability.

6. DECISION

On the merits of the above, the Constitutional Court of Colombia, on behalf of the people and by mandate of the Constitution,

RESOLVES:

First. By the General Secretariat of this Corporation, return to the Presidency of the House of Representatives Law 1254 on November 27, 2008, "by means of which the" Convention is approved " Basic of Technical and Scientific Cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of Colombia ", made in the city of Lima, on 23 November 2001", in order to remedy the procedural defect indicated in this providence.

Second. Grant to the Second Permanent Constitutional Commission of the House of Representatives the term of thirty (30) days, counted from the notification of this Auto to the Presidency of the same, to subsane the vice detected in this providence.

Third. Once the vice referred to in the consideration of this providence has been remedied, the House of Representatives will have until June 20, 2010, to fulfill the later stages of the legislative process. Then, the President of the Republic will have the deadline set in the Charter to sanction the bill.

Fourth. The President of the Congress will forward to the Court the corresponding law, in order to decide definitively on his exilibility.

Copy, notify, communicate to the National Government, insert in the Constitutional Court Gazette and comply.

The President,

Nilson Pinilla Pinilla.

Maria Victoria Calle Correa, Mauricio González Cuervo (absent in Commission), Juan Carlos Henao Perez, Gabriel Eduardo Mendoza Martelo, Jorge Ivan Palacio Palacio, Jorge Ignacio Pretelt Chaljub, Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto, Luis Ernesto Vargas Silva,

Magistrates.

The General Secretariat,

Martha Victoria Sachica Mendez.

* * *

1 See 1997 C-468 ; C-376 1998; C-426 2000 and C-924 2000.

2.

3 Cfr. Statement C-644 of 2004.

4 Cfr. 2004 Auto 038 and Statement C-533 of 2004.

5 C-333 Statement of 2005.

6 Auto 232 of 2007.

7 Auto 126 of 2008.

8 Autos 232 of 2007 and 081 of 2008, among others.

9 Cfr. 2005 C-475 statements, 2005 C-1040 , 2006 C-241 , 2006 C-276 , 2006 Autos 311, 2007, 081, 2008, enter other.

10 Auto 081 of 2008. See also Autos 232 of 2007, 053 of 2007, 311 of 2006, 089 of 2005, as well as the Sentences C-927 of 2007, C-276 of 2006, C-649 of 2006 and C-576 2006, among others.

11 C-737 Statement of 2001.

12 See Auto 126 of 2008.

13 Statement C-930 2005: " Having regard to the foregoing, the Court observes that the aforementioned interruption existed in the legislative procedure under study for the approval of the initiative in the second debate in the Senate of the Republic. Indeed, at the plenary on June 15, 2004, was announced the vote on the project for the next session, that is, on June 16 of the same year. Thus, the initiative was included in the Order of the Day of that session, but was not discussed or approved, so, in regard to the requirement set out in article 160 C. P., it was necessary to continue with the ad sequence. However, this obligation was pretermaimed in approving the bill at the Plenary on June 17, 2004; this is, in a session other than that in which the vote was announced. As a result, a vice was incurred in the legislative procedure, which, according to the arguments put forward, carries the inexequibility of the approval law. (Highlighted out of text).

14 Statement C-533 of 2004.

15 Statement C-533 of 2004. The Court considered that a procedural vice was not configured as: " For the Court in the present case, the requirement stated in the final article of article 160 is to be understood. Constitutional, to the extent that, having regard to the purpose of the law-to know how to allow the Congressmen to know which projects will be put to the vote, without it being possible to surprise them with bad votes-and given the circumstances that were presented at the meeting on 26 August 2003 where it was necessary to lift the Session for lack of quorum to decide, the project that culminated with the expedition of the Law 840 of 2003 was discussed and approved previous announcement in previous session that it would be discussed and voted in the next session Plenary session for the vote on bills, plenary session held on Tuesday, September 2, 2003. " He further added: "In this regard it is pertinent to further recall that article 80 of Law 5 of 1992 states that" When in a session the Order of the Day noted for it has not been exhausted, in the following continue the same order to its conclusion. " And that this was precisely what happened at the August 26 session, which had to be lifted by the absence of a quorum to decide on the matters of that Order of the Day. "

16 Auto 013 of 2007: "The Undersecretary was limited at the end of the session of September 27, 2005, to point out the" announcement of projects ", among which was Project number 069 of 2005 Chamber and 244 of 2005 Senate, without the fact that the President of the Commission, or the session for which the vote on the said bill was scheduleddid not appear for the effect either. Thus, the inclusion of the project referred to in the terms referred to above does not constitute compliance with the superior mandate to which reference has been made, since this implies a prior and certain knowledge from the Congressmen of the date that the vote on a given project will take place, a circumstance which was not presented in the present case ". (Highlighted out of text).

17 Statement C-576 of 2006.

18 Statement C-649 2006.

19 Statement C-576 2006.

20 cfr., Constitutional Court, Cars 013 of 2007, 053 of 2007, 078 of 2007, 119 of 2007, 232 of 2007 and 126 of 2008, among others.