By Establishing Rules On Traffic Police And Road Transport And Control Groups Territorial Entities Are Unified And Other Provisions

Original Language Title: Mediante la cual se unifican normas sobre agentes de tránsito y transporte y grupos de control vial de las entidades territoriales y se dictan otras disposiciones

Subscribe to a Global-Regulation Premium Membership Today!

Key Benefits:

Subscribe Now for only USD$20 per month, or Get a Day Pass for only USD$4.99.
ACT 1310 2009
(June 26)
Official Gazette No. 47392 of June 26, 2009

CONGRESS OF THE REPUBLIC By establishing rules on transit and transport agents and groups are unified traffic control of local authorities and other provisions. Effective Jurisprudence



THE CONGRESS OF COLOMBIA DECREES:

CHAPTER I. GENERAL PROVISIONS.
ARTICLE 1o. AREA OF APPLICATION. The rules contained in this Act shall apply to transit agencies and transportation and forwarding agents and transport of territory. Effective Jurisprudence

Article 2.
. DEFINITION. For the application and interpretation of this law, the following definitions shall apply:
agencies Traffic and Transportation: They are public entities in the municipal, district or departmental whose function is to organize, direct and control traffic and transport in their respective jurisdiction.
Transit Authority and Transport: Any public entity or public employee who is accredited pursuant to article 3 of Law 769 of 2002
Agent Traffic and Transportation: All public employee vested with authority to regulate vehicular traffic and pedestrian, monitor, control and intervene in compliance with traffic rules and transportation in each of the local authorities.
Group or Body Control Road Traffic Police: Group of public employees vested with authority as agents of transit and transport and related legal regulations to transit agencies and transportation. Effective Jurisprudence


ARTICLE 3. PROFESSIONALISM. Activity Agent Traffic and Transportation is a profession and as such should receive commensurate comprehensive academic training with its range that allows a professional, cultural and social development, with emphasis on ethical, moral, physical, ecological, leadership training and community service.
For the purposes of technical training in the field, required to serve as transit authority and transportation, transit agencies with jurisdiction in the departmental capitals may create non-formal schools in charge of that academic training, meeting the regulated pénsum by the Ministry of Transport or failing for this training or technology will be contracted with recognized public universities. PARAGRAPH 1.
. The Ministry of Transport, within six (6) days following the publication of this law months, set the parameters to update the curriculum of training, induction, re-induction and technical training to be a traffic cop. PARAGRAPH 2.
. Transit agencies and transportation should organize at least annually one (1) refresher course on rules and procedures for transit and transport, road safety and judicial police, human, ethical and moral relations aimed at all employees and taught by persons or entities best in the industry. Effective Jurisprudence


ARTICLE 4. JURISDICTION. Without prejudice to the collaboration that must pay the various transit authorities, each shall perform its functions in the territory of their jurisdiction, as follows: The Highway Police of the National Police on national roads; transit agents of departmental bodies in those municipalities where transit agencies have not; agents municipal or district in urban and rural municipalities perimeter of transit.
Each transit agency will have a single specialized body of traffic and transport agents that act only in their respective jurisdiction (or under agreements with other municipalities), which by their range of authority and functions of judicial police have no may be delegated or contract with individuals. Effective Jurisprudence



Matches
The 5th ITEM. GENERAL FUNCTIONS. The bodies of traffic police and transport of Territorial Entities are instituted to ensure compliance with the regulatory regime of transit and transport and ensure free locomotion of all citizens and permanent exercise, functions:
1. Judicial police. Regarding the competition offenses transit authorities according to the Code of Criminal Procedure and National Traffic Code.
2. Education. Through guidance and training and create culture in the community regarding traffic rules and transportation.
3. Preventive. Commission of infractions or violations, regulating vehicular and pedestrian traffic, monitoring, controlling and intervening in compliance with the technical and legal procedures missionary traffic rules.

4. Solidarity. Among the bodies of traffic police and transport, community and other authorities.
5. civic vigilance. Protection of natural resources related to the quality of the environment and ecology in urban and rural areas contained in the current environmental and transit and transportation standards. Effective Jurisprudence



Matches
CHAPTER II.
NEST, CREATION AND INCOME.

ARTICLE 6o. HIERARCHY. It is the internal organization of traffic control group that determines the command in ascending or descending order. The hierarchy within these bodies for purposes of organization, hierarchical level of employment in administrative career, job name, the same as for all obligations and rights under this law, shall be determined in this article.
The profession of agent transit perform functions that require the development of processes and procedures in mission support and technical work as well as those related to the application of science and technology as judicial police, belong in administrative career technical level and include the following grades in descending scale: CODIGODENOMINACIONNIVEL


290Comandante of TránsitoProfesional 338Subcomandante technical Operational Transit 339Técnico

TránsitoTécnico 340Agentes of TránsitoTécnico
PARÁGRAFO. Not all territorial entities necessarily have all the codes and names these will be determined by the needs of the service. Effective Jurisprudence


ARTICLE 7. CREATION AND INCOME REQUIREMENTS.
1: To enter the bodies of traffic police and transport of local authorities is also required. Being Colombian with definite military situation.
2. Possess driving license second (2nd) and fourth (4th) category at least.
3. It not has been convicted at any time by judicial sentence, deprivation of liberty, except for culpable political crimes.
4. Be of age.
5. Take and pass the training program (academic training and minimum intensity established by the competent authority).
6. Possess a high school diploma, certificate or proof of processing.
PARÁGRAFO. For the creation of the positions of traffic police and local authorities transport convenience and opportunity should be evaluated according to the number of inhabitants and the number of vehicles passing through the city. Effective Jurisprudence


Article 8. Amend the 1st paragraph of Article 4 of Law 769 of 2002, which will read:
Directors of transit agencies or departments Transit local authorities must certify related training and experience in the field of two ( 2) years or failing graduate or graduate studies in the field. Effective Jurisprudence


CHAPTER III.
Moralizing and citizen participation system.

Article 9. MORALIZATION. The bodies of traffic police are responsible for their moralizing, therefore will create courts or ethics committees, which issued concepts on performance, behavior, behavior of their components, to be attended by the heads of the offices of transit. Effective Jurisprudence


ARTICLE 10. SYSTEM OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION. The bodies of traffic police and transport of Territorial Entities develop a system of citizen participation in order to strengthen relations between the citizen and the institution, establishing effective mechanisms to express themselves and are attended various sectoral and regional interests, pertaining the service of the traffic police. Effective Jurisprudence


ARTICLE 11. TRANSIT COMMISSION AND CIVIC PARTICIPATION. Believe Transit Commission and Citizen Participation, as a mechanism at the highest level, responsible for guiding and supervising the relations between citizenship, transit agents Territorial Entities and administrative authorities. This commission aims to meet the needs of different social groups, regarding issues of transit and transport, and make recommendations on the set of procedural rules and behavior that regulate the services of the institution. Effective Jurisprudence


ARTICLE 12. COMPOSITION. The Transit Commission Territorial Entities and Citizen Participation, will be composed of:
1. Mayor or Governor in each territorial level or his delegate.
2. A member of the Territorial Planning Council.
3. A delegate of the Union of Employees of Traffic and Transportation.

4. A representative of the Community Action Boards.
5. A representative of the Transport Companies.
6. A representative of the Traffic Police.
7. A delegate of the Municipal Council or Departmental Assembly, according to the territorial entity to which the transit agency is assigned. Effective Jurisprudence


ARTICLE 13. FUNCTIONS. They are basic functions of the Commission for Territorial Transit and Public Participation:
1. Propose initiatives to strengthen preventive action by public officials of bodies of local authorities transit traffic, to society and to prevent the commission of offenses, crimes and omissions.
2. Propose initiatives and mechanisms to determine priority ethical, civilian, democratic, educational and social community-oriented traffic police and other public servants relationship.
3. Promote citizen participation in matters of transit and transport, departmental and municipal levels.
4. Recommend mechanism design, project, program planning, prevention, safety and traffic control, to ensure the commitment of the community-forwarding agents and state agencies with the support and participation of Road Prevention Fund.
5. Recommend development programs, health, housing, education and welfare for officials from transit agencies in local authorities.
6. Recommend expanding traffic control groups in each local authority.
7. Other local and regional authorities assigned to them in relation to traffic and transport in the town.
PARÁGRAFO. The Director or Secretary of territorial transit convene every three months to the Commission on Territorial Traffic and Citizen Participation. Effective Jurisprudence


CHAPTER IV.
UNIFORMS, USE AND FINAL PROVISIONS.

ARTICLE 14 UNIFORM AND USE. The National Government will issue regulations to define the relevant aspects related to the use of uniforms, designs and other aspects that allow the identification of traffic agents in local authorities.
These employees in active service shall be entitled to the respective entity will provide free, three (3) annual allocations in full uniform, insignia, badges and equipment in accordance with the regulations issued by each local authority. This provision is no salary, nor be counted as a factor of it in any case. Effective Jurisprudence


ARTICLE 15. FINAL PROVISIONS. The National Government within ninety (90) days from the effective date of this Act, issue regulations to allow the operation of this law.
PARÁGRAFO TRANSIENT. The National Civil Service Commission will make the necessary modifications to Call 001 2005 based on this law. Effective Jurisprudence


ARTICLE 16. This law applies from the date of its enactment and repeal the provisions that are contrary. Effective Jurisprudence


The President of the honorable Senate,
SERRANO HERNAN ANDRADE.
The Secretary General of the honorable Senate,
EMILIO RAMÓN OTERO DAJUD.
The President of the honorable House of Representatives, GERMÁN
MALE Cotrino.
The Secretary General of the honorable House of Representatives,
JESUS ​​ALFONSO RODRÍGUEZ CAMARGO.
REPUBLIC OF COLOMBIA - NATIONAL GOVERNMENT
published and enforced.
Given in Bogotá, DC, on June 26, 2009.

The Alvaro Uribe Transport Minister
Andrés Uriel Gallego Henao.

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT JUDGMENT NUMBER C-306 2009
Reference: File OP-112
Presidential Objections to the bill number 2007 190 Senate chamber 077 2006, by which standards are unified on traffic police and road transport and control groups of local authorities and other provisions.
Magistrate: Juan Carlos Henao Pérez
Bogotá, DC, twenty-nine (29) April two thousand and nine (2009).
The Plenary Chamber of the Constitutional Court in exercise of its constitutional and legal powers, particularly those under Articles 167 and 241, paragraph 8 of the Constitution, and fulfilled all the procedures and requirements set out in Decree 2067 of 1991 utters the following JUDGMENT
I
. BACKGROUND

Received an official letter by the General Secretariat of the Corporation on November 24, 2008, the President of the Senate referred the bill number 2007 Senate 190, 077, 2006 House, "by which unify rules on freight forwarders and transport groups and traffic control of local authorities and other provisions ", contested by the Government on grounds of unconstitutionality, that, in accordance with the provisions of Article 167 of the Constitution and 32 Decree 2067 of 1991, the Court to rule on its constitutionality.
Request evidence of compliance of the legislative process
1. By order of 28 November 2008, Judge Speaker took cognizance of the process and requested the Secretaries-General of the Senate and House of Representatives sending several tests on the legislative process followed for approval of the project both of law No. 190 of 2007 Senate 077 2006 House, "by which rules on freight forwarders and transport groups and traffic control of local authorities are unified and other provisions" as for the approval of the Report on the Government objections to the same bill.
2. With Auto 389 of three (3) December two thousand and eight (2008), the Full Court decided not to decide on presidential objections reference "while the constitutional and legal budgets do not meet" and decided urge to the Secretaries-General of the Senate and House of Representatives that shall gather all required documents ". Consequently, in the car it was decided that the processing of the process would continue "once the Substantiating Justice verify that the above tests have been adequately provided ...".
3. By orders of the day December 11, 2008 and February 10, 2009 the Secretaries-General of the Senate and House of Representatives that would cleave unto the court various documents on the legislative process for the project it was requested.
4. By order of 11 February 2009 the Secretary General of the Senate was asked to send various documents.
5. By letters of different dates the Secretaries-General of the Senate and House of Representatives they sent to the Constitutional Court the documents requested, why By order of the day April 13, 2009 it was decided to go ahead with the process.
Description of the legislative process for the bill
The legislative process of the project was as follows:
- Parliamentary Initiative and pending in the House of Representatives
- On August 16, 2006, the representatives Pedro Jimenez Salazar, Jorge Humberto Mantilla Serrano, Jose Manuel Herrera Cely, Berner Leon Zambrano Erazo, Jaime de Jesus Restrepo Cuartas, Jose Gerardo Piamba, Myrian Paredes, Luis Jairo Ibarra and Diego Alberto Naranjo Escobar settled with the General Secretariat of the House of representatives bill number 077 2006 House, "by which rules on freight forwarders and transport groups and traffic control of local authorities unify and other provisions according dictate to Article 150, paragraph 25 of the Constitution national and rulings of the Constitutional Court C-530/03 and C577 / 09 of 25 July 2006 ". The project and its reasons were published in the Congress Gazette 298, 2006, pp. 610.
- The report first discussion paper for the bill number 2006 077 House and list of amendments, submitted by Representatives José Manuel Herrera Cely, Leon Berner Zambrano Alberto Erazo and Gordon May, was published in Congress Gazette 503, 2006, pp. 5-9.
- The bill number 2006 077 Chamber was announced to be voted in the Sixth Constitutional Permanent Commission of the House of Representatives on November 1, 2006, as stated in the Act No. 14 of 2006, published in 605 Congress Gazette 2006, p. 5.
- The Draft Law No. 077 of 2006 was considered and approved at the Sixth Constitutional Permanent Commission of the House of Representatives on November 7, 2006, as stated in the Commission Act No. 15, published in the Congress Gazette 606, 2006, p. 7-10. According to the certification of the Secretary-General of the Sixth Committee of the House, the bill was approved "with a quorum and a unanimous vote of fourteen (14) votes". (C5, p. 3).

- The text approved in the first debate and the presentation report for the second debate in plenary of the House of Representatives, presented by the Representatives Jose Manuel Herrera Cely, Alberto Gordon May, Ciro Antonio Rodriguez Leon P. and Berner Zambrano, were published in the Gazette of the 499th Congress in 2007, fls. 12-15.
- At the plenary session on October 30, 2007 announced the consideration and voting of the paper for the second debate, as stated in the Act Plenary Session number 078 that day, published in the Gazette of Congress 614, 2007, p. 27.
- On November 6, 2007, the Plenary of the House of Representatives considered and approved the proposal that ended the presentation report for the second debate, with the amendments and the proposed articulated, as stated in the Plenary Session Act number 079 of that day, published in the Congress Gazette 601 2007, p. 22. The Secretary General of the House certifies that the bill was considered and approved and that the meeting was attended by 159 representatives (2 fl. 3).
- The approved text of the bill in the plenary of the House of Representatives was published in the Congress Gazette 577 2007, pp. 2-3.
- Step in the Senate
- The record number 077 Bill 2006 was referred to the House Senate and numbered as Bill number 2007 Senate 190 - 077 2006 House . He was appointed as rapporteur Senator Alexander López Maya.
- The report report of the first debate in the Committee of Permanent Constitutional Sixth Senate was published in the Gazette number 627 Congress December 4, 2007, fls. 12-15.
- On March 31, 2008, the Minister of Finance and Public Credit, Oscar Iván Zuluaga Escobar, sent to the Chairman of the Sixth Committee of the Senate of the Republic a letter in which states that it is the national government that It corresponds fixing prestacional regime all public servants, based on the broad and general regulations established by the Congress, which is why the latter could not create the articulated a risk premium for forwarders . It also highlights the need to include in the preamble or in the reports of presentation of the project "fiscal costs generated for local authorities set out in Article 17 of the draft concerning the provision of uniforms and equipment of the agents traffic".
- The bill number 2007 Senate 190 - 077 of 2006 Chamber was announced to be voted by the Permanent Constitutional Sixth Committee of the Senate of the Republic on April 1, 2008, as stated in the Act number 20, 2008, published in the Congress Gazette 2008. 193
- the paper first debate in the Sixth Committee of the Senate was approved at the meeting of April 8, 2008, as stated in the Act number 21, published in the Congress Gazette 298, 2008, pp. 2-8.
- The report of the second debate in the Plenary of the Senate was published, along with the text adopted at the Sixth Committee of the Senate and the proposed second debate in the Congress Gazette number 275 of 22 text May 2008, fls. 17-22.
- The bill number 2007 Senate 190 - 077 2006 House was announced for the second debate in the plenary of the Senate on June 4, 2008, as stated in Act number 52, published in the Congress Gazette 540, 2008, p. 16.
- The bill number 2007 Senate 190 - 077 2006 House was approved on June 11, 2008 by the Plenary of the Senate, as stated in the Act No. 53, published in the Congress Gazette 560, 2008, pp. 6, 16 and 66. According to the certification issued by the Secretary General of the Senate, approval "was 92 honorable senators that according to the minutes appear attending the session, plus 9 Senators who stopped attending, plus a impediment accepted (...), there was no request for roll call or recorded negative votes. " (C3, p.2)
- The text adopted at the Plenary of the Senate was published in the Congress Gazette 505, 2008, pp. 6-8.
- The processing of the report of the mediation commission accidental
- Since there were differences between the texts approved by the Senate of the Republic and the House of Representatives Accidental Mediation Committee was established, which gave his report on June 17, 2008, published in the Gazettes of Congress 374, pp. 10-12 and 376, 2008, pp. 3-5.

- The report of the Accidental Mediation Commission was announced for a vote by the Plenary of the House of Representatives on June 17, 2008, as stated in the Act No. 118 of 2008, published in the Gazette Congress 423, 2008, p. 41.
- The report of the Accidental Mediation Committee was considered and approved by the Plenary of the House of Representatives on June 18, 2008, as stated in the Act No. 119 of 2008, published in the Gazette 424 Congress 2008, pp. 14-15. The Secretary General of the House of Representatives certifies that the project "was considered and approved by a majority of those present" and that the meeting was attended by 156 representatives (C2, fl. 3).
- The report of the Accidental Mediation Commission was announced for discussion and approval by the Plenary of the Senate of the Republic on June 18, 2008, as stated in the Act number 56, published in the Gazette of Congress 563, 2008, p. 48.
- The reconciliation report was approved by the plenary of the Senate on June 19, 2008, as recorded in the minutes number 57, published in the Congress Gazette 564 2008, pp. 5 and 16-18. The Secretary General of the Senate certifies that "the approval was 90 honorable senators in the absence of demand for roll-call vote, or hindrance, nor evidence of negative votes." (C3, fl. 2).
- On July 8, 2008, settled in the Administrative Department of the Presidency of the Republic the bill number 2006 077 House - 190 of 2007 Senate for the corresponding presidential approval (.. Fl CP 31) .
- Presidential objections and pending in the Legislative Chambers
- On July 16, 2008, the President of the Republic, the Minister of Transport and the Director of the Administrative Department of Public Service sent the President of the House of Representatives a statement of objections from the national government to the bill, on grounds of unconstitutionality and inconvenience, which was published in the Congress Gazette 426, 2008, pp. 21-23.
- Senator Alexander López Maya and Representatives to the House Celis Jorge Enrique Gomez Diaz and Carlos Alberto Zuluaga were appointed to debrief on the presidential objections to the bill number 2006 077 2007 -190 Senate Chamber.
- The parliamentary report on the presidential objections was presented to the Presidents of the Senate and House of Representatives and published in the Gazettes of Congress 714 and 716, 2008, pp. 21-24 and 11-15, respectively.
- The report on the presidential objections was announced for a vote by the House of Representatives on October 16, 2008, as stated in the Act No. 142, published in the Congress Gazette 897, 2008, p. 57.
- The report on the presidential objections was approved by the Plenary of the House of Representatives at the meeting on October 20, 2008, as stated in the Act No. 143 of 2008, published in the Gazette of Congress number 964 of 2008, p.18. According to certification annexed by the Secretary General of the House of Representatives in session hundred fifty seven (157) Representatives were present and the report was considered and approved "by most of those present in ordinary vote." (C. 2, p. 4).
- The report on the presidential objections was announced for a vote by the Senate on October 21, 2008, as stated in the Act No. 19 of 2008, published in the Gazette of Congress 28, 2009, p.30.
- The report on the presidential objections was approved by the Senate on October 28, 2008, as stated in the Act No. 20, published in the Gazette of Congress 29, 2009, pp. 4 and 33-35. According to the certificate issued by the Secretary General of the Senate of the Republic, the report was adopted "unanimously by 96 honorable senators appearing attending the plenary where there was no request for a roll-call or recorded negative votes, or retirement thwarts ... ". (C11, p.1)
- On November 13, 2008, the President of the Senate referred to the Constitutional Court, the record of the bill, for the Corporation decide on the objections of Congress the Republic about the constitutionality of it. The office of the Senate was filed in this Court on 24 November 2008.
II. TEXT OF STANDARDS OBJECTED

The Court then transcribes the final text of the bill number 2007 Senate 190, 077, 2006 House, "by which rules on traffic police and road transport and control groups territorial entities are unified and dictate other provisions "approved by Congress and challenged by the Government.
"BILL NUMBER CAMERA 077 2006, 190 2007 SENATE
rules by which traffic police and road transport and control groups territorial entities are unified and other provisions.
"The Congress of Colombia
" DECREES:
"CHAPTER I
" General Provisions
"Article 1o. Area of ​​application. The rules contained in this Act shall apply to transit agencies and transportation and forwarding agents and transport of territory.
"Article 2.. Definition. For the application and interpretation of this law, the following definitions shall apply:
"Traffic and Transportation Organizations: These are public entities municipal, district or departmental whose function is to organize, direct and control traffic and transport in their respective jurisdiction.
"Traffic and Transportation Authority: Any public entity or public employee who is accredited pursuant to article 3 of Law 769 of 2002
" Agent Traffic and Transportation: All public employee vested with authority to regulate the flow vehicular and pedestrian, monitor, control and intervene in compliance with traffic rules and transportation in each of the local authorities.
"Group or Body Control Road Traffic Police: Group of public employees vested with authority as agents of transit and transport and related legal regulations to transit agencies and transportation.
"Article 3o. Professionalism. Activity Agent Traffic and Transportation is a profession and as such should receive commensurate comprehensive academic training with its range that allows a professional, cultural and social development, with emphasis on ethical, moral, physical, ecological, leadership training and community service.
"For the purposes of technical training in the field, required to serve as transit authority and transportation, transit agencies with jurisdiction in the departmental capitals may create non-formal schools in charge of that academic training, fulfilling the pénsum regulated by the Ministry of Transport or failing for this training or technology will be contracted with recognized public universities.
"Parágrafo it. The Ministry of Transport, within six months following the publication of this law, determine the parameters to update the curriculum of training, induction, re-induction and technical training to be a traffic cop.
"Paragraph 2o. Transit agencies and transportation should organize at least annually one (1) refresher course on rules and procedures for transit and transport, road safety and judicial police, human, ethical and moral relations aimed at all employees and taught by persons or entities best in the industry.
"Article 4o. Jurisdiction. Without prejudice to the collaboration that must pay the various transit authorities, each shall perform its functions in the territory of their jurisdiction, as follows: The Highway Police of the National Police on national roads; transit agents of departmental bodies in those municipalities where transit agencies have not; agents municipal or district in urban and rural municipalities perimeter of transit.
"Each transit agency will have a single specialized body of traffic and transport agents that act only in their respective jurisdiction (or under agreements with other municipalities), which by their range of authority and have functions of Judicial Police may not be delegated or contract with individuals.
"The 5th Article. General functions. The bodies of traffic police and transport of Territorial Entities are instituted to ensure compliance with the regulatory regime of transit and transport and ensure free locomotion of all citizens and permanent exercise, functions:
"1 . Judicial police. Regarding the competition offenses transit authorities according to the Code of Criminal Procedure and National Traffic Code.
"2. Education. Through guidance and training and create culture in the community regarding traffic rules and transportation.

"3. Preventive. Commission of infractions or violations, regulating vehicular and pedestrian traffic, monitoring, controlling and intervening in compliance with the technical and legal procedures missionary traffic rules.
"4. Solidarity. Among the bodies of traffic police and transport, community and other authorities.
"5. civic vigilance. Protection of natural resources related to the quality of the environment and ecology in urban and rural areas contained in the current environmental and transit and transportation standards.
"CHAPTER II
" of the hierarchy creation and income
"Article 6o. Hierarchy. It is the internal organization of traffic control group that determines the command in ascending or descending order. The hierarchy within these bodies for purposes of organization, hierarchical level of employment in administrative career, job name, the same as for all obligations and rights under this law, shall be determined in this article.
"The profession of agent transit perform functions that require the development of processes and procedures in mission support and technical work as well as those related to the application of science and technology as judicial police, belong in administrative career the technical level and shall include the following grades in descending scale:
"CODIGODENOMINACIONNIVEL
" 290Comandante of TránsitoProfesional
"technical Traffic 338Subcomandante
" Operational TránsitoTécnico 339Técnico
"340Agentes of TránsitoTécnico
"Paragraph. Not all territorial entities necessarily have all the codes and names, these are determined by the needs of the service.
"Article 7.. Creation and income requirements. To enter the bodies of traffic police and transport of local authorities is also required:
"1. Being Colombian with definite military situation.
"2. Possess driving license second (2nd) and fourth (4th) category at least.
"3. It not has been convicted at any time by judicial sentence, deprivation of liberty, except for culpable political crimes.
"4. Be of age.
"5. Take and pass the training program (academic training and minimum intensity established by the competent authority).
"6. Possess a high school diploma, certificate or proof of processing.
"Parágrafo. For the creation of the positions of traffic police and local authorities transport convenience and opportunity should be evaluated according to the number of inhabitants and the number of vehicles passing through the city.
"Article 8.. Amend the 1st paragraph of Article 4 of Law 769 of 2002, which will read:
"The heads of agencies or departments Transit Transit territorial entities must accredit vocational training and related experience in the field two (2) years or failing graduate or graduate studies in the field.
"CHAPTER III
" moralizing and citizen participation system
"Article 9o. Moralization. The bodies of traffic police are responsible for their moralizing, therefore will create courts or Ethics Committees, which issue concepts on performance, behavior, behavior of their components, to be attended by the heads of the offices of transit.
"Article 10. The system of citizen participation. The bodies of traffic police and transport of Territorial Entities develop a system of citizen participation in order to strengthen relations between the citizen and the institution, establishing effective mechanisms to express themselves and are attended various sectoral and regional interests, pertaining the service of the traffic police.
"Article 11. Transit Commission and Citizen Participation. Believe Transit Commission and Citizen Participation, as a mechanism at the highest level, responsible for guiding and supervising the relations between citizenship, transit agents Territorial Entities and administrative authorities. This commission aims to meet the needs of different social groups, regarding issues of transit and transport, and make recommendations on the set of procedural rules and behavior that regulate the services of the institution.
"Article 12. Composition. The Transit Commission Territorial Entities and Citizen Participation, will be composed of:
"1. Mayor or Governor in each territorial level or his delegate.
"2. A member of the Territorial Planning Council.

"3. A delegate of the Union of Employees of Traffic and Transportation.
"4. A representative of the Community Action Boards.
"5. A representative of the Transport Companies.
"6. A representative of the Traffic Police.
"7. A delegate of the Municipal Council or Departmental Assembly, according to the territorial entity to which the transit agency is assigned.
"Article 13. Functions. They are basic functions of the Commission for Territorial Traffic and Citizen Participation:
"1. Propose initiatives to strengthen preventive action by public officials of bodies of local authorities transit traffic, to society and to prevent the commission of offenses, crimes and omissions.
"2. Propose initiatives and mechanisms to determine priority ethical, civilian, democratic, educational and social community-oriented traffic police and other public servants relationship.
"3. Promote citizen participation in matters of transit and transport, departmental and municipal levels.
"4. Recommend mechanism design, project, program planning, prevention, safety and traffic control, to ensure the commitment of the community-forwarding agents and state agencies with the support and participation of Road Prevention Fund.
"5. Recommend development programs, health, housing, education and welfare for officials from transit agencies in local authorities.
"6. Recommend expanding traffic control groups in each local authority.
"7. Other local and regional authorities assigned to them in relation to traffic and transport in the town.
"Parágrafo. The Director or Secretary of territorial transit convene every three months to the Commission on Territorial Traffic and Citizen Participation.
"CHAPTER IV
" Uniforms, use and final provisions
"Article 14. Uniform and use. The National Government will issue regulations to define the relevant aspects related to the use of uniforms, designs and other aspects that allow the identification of traffic agents in local authorities.
"These employees in active service shall be entitled to the respective entity will provide free, three (3) annual allocations in full uniform, insignia, badges and equipment in accordance with the regulations issued by each local authority. This provision is no salary, nor be counted as a factor of it in any case.
"Article 15. Final provisions. The National Government within 90 days from the effective date of this Act, issue regulations to allow the operation of this law.
"Transitory paragraph. The National Civil Service Commission will make the necessary modifications to Call 001 2005 based on this law.
"Article 16. This law applies from the date of its enactment and repeal the provisions that are contrary".
III. OBJECTIONS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC
through the President of the Republic, the Minister of Transport and the Director of the Administrative Department of Civil Service, the Government objected to the bill on grounds of unconstitutionality and inconvenience. Next, the Court shall describe the objections of unconstitutionality.
In the letter it is stated that the bill violates both Articles 151 of the Constitution, which provides that the legislative activity will be conducted in accordance with the respective organic laws and Articles 300-7 and 313-6, indicating what the powers of the departmental assemblies and municipal, respectively Councils are.
With regard to the allegation about the violation of Article 151 state that Article 142 of the Constitution stipulates that the law shall determine the number of Standing Committees of the Legislative Chambers, as the materials of which must address each one of them. In this sense, they say that the Law 3rd 1992 established what those commissions and their powers and that the Judgment C-648 of 1997 provided that "the violation of the provisions of Law 3rd 1992 carries an irremediable vice of unconstitutionality antagonizing the constitutional mandate contained in Article 151 Superior .... "

They note that the disputed project concerns the traffic police, but that does not mean that your topic is the transport sector. Mentioned that the project background is clear from his goal is "to note the location, name, among other requirements transit agents within the administrative structure in local authorities". Say about it:
"In fact, its initial name, 'by which rules on traffic police and road transport and control groups territorial entities are unified and other provisions are issued in accordance with Article 150 number 25 of the National and Judgment Constitution of the Constitutional Court C-530 of 2003 and C-577 of 27 July 2006 ', it follows that the object of this is to unify the rules on freight forwarders and transport groups and traffic control of local authorities, serving pronouncements of the Constitution in which reference is made inter alia to the regulatory powers of the Government, its scope and the constitutional power granted to the legislator to determine the regime qualities of municipal employees. In the same vein, the preamble to the bill states that the objective is to define the quality and requirements that must demonstrate the officials to take up employment administrative career or appointment and removal as this definition has legal reserve according to the rulings of the Court ... ".
Based on the above report that, since the project seeks to unify rules on traffic police and road transport and control groups of local authorities, is directly related "to the structure and organization of the central administration and, Accordingly, it is incumbent upon the matters First Committee. " Thus, they conclude that the project "has vices of unconstitutionality for violating Article 151 of the Constitution, since it was processed and approved in the first debate a Permanent Commission that it had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the draft law".
Moreover, they say that the 1st and 2nd articles of the draft articles 300-7 and violate 313-6. On this point state that, in accordance with Article 150-7 of the Charter, "the competence of the legislature to determine the organizational structure of public entities is materially restricted to the national administration, which means that the allocation is not predicable in no case of territorial administration, which is allocated for such purposes such allocation assemblies and councils ". Exposes then
:
"With the wording of the 2nd article of the bill would impose assemblies and councils, so do not expect to, the obligation to create public entities to fulfill the function of organizing, direct and control traffic and transport in their respective jurisdiction, ie, determining the respective departmental and municipal structure the existence of a particular form of entity to direct and control traffic and transportation system, currently in most local authorities, these functions are being carried out by the respective secretariats Transit.
"In sum, this provision of the bill indicates undue interference by the Congress in determining the organizational structure of the departmental and municipal administration, which involves, on the one hand, the overreaching of the functions of the legislature and, secondly, the usurpation of constitutional powers assigned to the Assemblies and Councils.
"The above objection is predicable by extension to article 1 of the bill, as states that 'the rules contained in this Act shall apply to transit agencies and forwarding agents and transport in their respective jurisdiction' , making him outside the coverage of the bill to territorial entities that do not have organized this activity through public entities and not pave to organize in the manner intended by the legislature. "
IV. Insistence CONGRESS OF THE REPUBLIC
The Congress did not accept the objections raised by the national government and decided to refer the draft approved by the Constitutional Court. You
The report which was approved by both legislative chambers, signed by Senator Alexander López Maya, and the House Representatives Jorge Enrique Gomez Celis and Carlos Alberto Zuluaga Diaz manifests:
- That is not true, the bill objected "has been studied in first debate by an incompetent Commission".

- It is not true that the bill "flagrantly violates the unity of matter, because it articulates each other, referring to traffic and transport agents, regulating their activity, professionalism, behavior, requirements, income, moralizing uniforms ".
- That matter that regulates the project is "legal reserve, that is empowered by the Constitution to issue rules governing professions or occupations is precisely the Congress, legislative function that can not be delegated attributed to the Executive. "
To answer the objection about the project was processed and approved in the first debate for a commission was not competent, the report aside from a concept developed by the Board of Consultation and Civil Service of the State Council cited (CP Javier Henao Hidron). The concept is expressed that "the Law 3rd 1992 states that to resolve conflicts of jurisdiction between the standing committees, prevail the principle of specialty, and also that when matter which concerned the bill is not clearly attached to a commission, the President of the respective Chamber will send it to that which, in their opinion, is competent to hear related matters ".
Based on this, the authors of the report demonstrate, in the footnote on page number 3 which, in his opinion, "the legislator gave discretion allocation when no competition is exhaustively described in the law, allowing the president of the respective Chamber send it to those who in his opinion have jurisdiction of related materials; as it happened with the bill that was opposed by the National Government through the Ministry of Transport ".
Therefore, they ensure that
"Given the discretion authorized by the legislature and in the absence of exhaustive rule, the Speaker of the House did not break the constitutional precepts to distribute and allocate to the Sixth Committee of the House of Representatives the bill ...
"the President of the House of Representatives, making use of their constitutional and legal powers handed the bill in its discretion, taking into account the competence of the Sixth Committee on related subjects, because the project in question shall apply to transit agencies and transportation and forwarding agents and transport the territorial scope, aimed at transit authorities and transportation that have the quality of public institutions or accredited public servants under article 3 of the Law 769 2002 (National Code of Land transit and other provisions) and forwarding agents and transport, which have the quality of public servants vested with authority to regulate vehicular and pedestrian circulation, monitor, control and intervene in meeting traffic rules and transportation in each of the local authorities.
"On the other hand and to review the contents of the 3rd Act of 1992 is observed that issues of public works and transportation are the responsibility of the Sixth Committee and not otherwise as argued by the National Government through the Ministry of Transport, because in our opinion it is precisely the Sixth Committee which is entitled to receive the initial discussion on the Draft law No. 077 of 2006, "by which rules on freight forwarders and transport groups and traffic control of local authorities are unified and other provisions "because it was regulated and developed the Law 769 of 2002, which was issued by the National Land Transit Code and other provisions are issued.
They also state that the project aims to unify the standards for traffic agents, so that "although it seems discuss various issues, none is alien to the matter at hand ...".

The report refers to various judgments of the Constitutional Court (C- 530 2003 1997 C-570, C-109, 2002, 2004 C-1335, C-012 of 2000) is made to support the assertion that law is subject fixing grades for access to municipal jobs and public transit authorities charges, and regulation of the administrative career. They say that this does not mean "that the law must necessarily exhaust all matter, because one thing is that particular subject primarily corresponds to the legislator, under the general clause of competition, and other concerned a matter that has legal reserve , by specific mandate of the Charter. In the first case, the law has not fully develop the field, but can define the issue and allow their implementation through administrative regulations. But if it is a matter that has legal reserve, then only the legislator develop it. "
Moreover, in connection with the objection to the bill ignores the powers of the departmental assemblies and the municipal councils, argue that this interpretation is wrong, because the aim "is to regulate agencies transit and not creating new ones, for it an abstract and generic concept was used as the article 2, called 'definitions', referring to the 'transit agencies are public entities' without reference is made to establishments public, industrial and commercial state enterprises, or mixed companies, as argued in the written objection submitted for our consideration.
(...)
"So, not imposing referred to the National Government through the Ministry of Transport intends, because no reference to public establishments, industrial or commercial enterprises of territorial order is made , or mixed economy companies. The term used is that of public entities that obeys to a generic and impersonal concept, which concerns entities official sector such as ministries, departments, municipalities, transit directions, inspections of transit or any other agency to which you traffic assigned duties; From the foregoing, it can be reasonably inferred that the bill does not usurp the constitutional powers granted to the assemblies and councils. "
V. THE CONCEPT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE NATION
By Concept No. 4669, received by the Corporation on the December 2008, Mr. Attorney General's Office are unfounded concludes that the objections raised by the national government, against the Project law No. 190 of 2007 Senate Chamber 077 2006, "by which rules on traffic police and road transport and control groups territorial entities are unified and other provisions". Therefore, it asks the Court to declare its constitutionality.
The representative of the Attorney Vista notes that Article 2 of Law 1992 regulates 3rd Congressional Permanent Committees and that it is assigned to the Sixth Senate and House Committees matters within its competence, among which is the "public works and transportation." Notes that despite the thematic distribution of powers, making the aforementioned Article 2 of Law 3rd 1992 there are cases where conflict about what the committee is generated, either "when the issue of a bill it appears not assigned to a specific standing committee, or when the bill matters that concern several commissions are regulated ".
Mentioned that to solve these difficulties, Article 146 of Law 5 of 1992 provides that "when a bill seen on various subjects will be distributed to the responsible Committee of the predominant matter", while the 1st and 2nd paragraphs Article 2 of law 3rd state that when the issue which concerned the bill does not clearly belong to a Commission "the President of the respective Chamber will send it to that which, in their opinion, is competent to hear related subjects ".
Ensures that the Constitutional Court has ruled that when the President of a Chamber, in the presence of these conflicting cases, decided to send the project in question to a particular Commission, judicial review must be flexible in compliance with the democratic principle, the which it means that only can be declared unconstitutional when assigning competition is unreasonable and manifestly contrary to the normative content of Article 2 of Law 3rd 1992. Refers to the effect on the Sentences C-875 and C-2002 540 2001.

Based on the above, he believes that the President of the House of Representatives did not take an unreasonable or contrary to Article 2 of Law 3rd 1992 decision "for surely the project contains materials related to transport, has since as fundamental objectives professionalize forwarders and ensure efficient delivery of public transport service. "
Notes that the Government argued that, on the grounds that the project had "noted the location, name and requirements transit agents within the administrative structure of local authorities", which itself was outside the competent Commission First, to its rightful know the projects concerning the structure and organization of the central national administration. However, responds that while certain articles of the draft relate to transit agencies and public entities territorial order, in essence the project is not changing the structure or organization of the central national administration "because it is not creating these organisms, but they set their functions and powers. Moreover, it is clear that the bill, to unify the rules of traffic police, is precisely the issue of regulating traffic control for a transit service and more efficient transportation, in accordance with Article 209 of the Charter ". Refers to the effect of the Judgment C-577
2006. Nor shares the Director of Public Prosecutions objection about some articles of the draft violated the functions of the Assemblies and Councils to the regular themes of the management structure departmental and municipal levels. In this regard it asserts that the project "does not change the departmental and municipal structures, in which case itself would be an exclusive function of the Assemblies and Councils, but unifies regulations on traffic control at local level, which is part within freedom of regulatory configuration of the legislator and therefore must undergo the Assemblies and Councils. " He adds that the project "sets the general parameters for the proper traffic control and access to appropriate charges related agencies and transit authorities and transportation of territorial entities. That is, the legislature does not interfere in the particular issues that are the responsibility of local authorities in these matters ".
VI. FUNDAMENTALS AND CONSIDERATIONS Competition

1. The Constitutional Court has jurisdiction to decide definitively on the constitutionality of the rules challenged by the National Government, in accordance with Articles 167, subsection 241 4th and paragraph 8 of the Constitution.
The processing of objections and parliamentary insistence
2. Article 241-8 of the Constitution states that corresponds to the Constitutional Court to give final judgment "on the constitutionality of the bills that have been challenged by the Government as unconstitutional". In its case law the Court has held that the exercise of this function also includes the review of the assortment procedure for such objections on constitutional and legal norms that regulate [1]. For this reason, the Court shall review the above mentioned process before proceeding with the substantive examination of the objections.
3. As noted in the description of the legislative process for the project, contained in chapter Background of this judgment, the Draft Law No. 077 of 2006 House - 190 of 2007 Senate, "by which rules on traffic police and transport are unified and groups of traffic control of local authorities and other provisions ", was approved by the Plenary of the House of Representatives on November 6, 2007, and by the Plenary of the Senate of the Republic on June 11, 2008. Since the texts approved by both legislative chambers differed in their content, Accidental mediation Commission presented a report on mediation which was approved by the House on June 18, 2008, and by the Senate on June 19, 2008 .
the draft approved by the Congress was sent to the President of the Republic for the corresponding presidential approval. The project was received by the Presidency on 8 July 2008. By memorandum of July 16, 2008, the President of the Republic, the Minister of Transport and the Director of the Administrative Department of Public Service returned the project with objections constitutional and inconvenience.

In light of Article 166 of the Constitution, the Government had up to six (6) working days to submit objections to the project, since the bill consisted of less than twenty items. In this case, it warns that the objections were filed in time. As noted, on July 8, Tuesday, the project was filed for the presidential sanction in the Administrative Department of the Presidency of the Republic, and the presidential objections were filed on July 16, Wednesday, indicating which they were filed the sixth business day after the project came to the presidency. Objections were published in the Congress Gazette 406, 2008, pp. 21-23.
As discussed in the background of this judgment, the Legislative Chambers named Senator Alexander López Maya and Representatives Celis Jorge Enrique Gomez and Carlos Alberto Zuluaga Diaz as speakers for the study of presidential objections. Lawmakers rejected the arguments of unconstitutionality submitted by the national government and insisted on approving the project.
The report on the presidential objections, in which the presidential objections were rejected, was published in the Gazettes of Congress numbers 714 and 716 of 2008. Then, on October 16, 2008, was announced for a vote by the House of Representatives - as stated in the Act No. 142 published in the Congress Gazette 897, 2008, p. 57. The announcement was made as follows:
"projects for the Plenary session on Tuesday 21 or for the next Plenary, in which bills are debated and legislative acts are announced.
Report on Objection
"(...)
" Draft law number 077 of 2006 House, Senate 190 2007, "by which rules on transit and transport agents and control groups are unified vial of local authorities and other provisions ".
At the end of the session it was decided "to convene the House, for Monday [20 October] at two in the afternoon."
The project was approved by the House of Representatives on October 20, 2008; as it appears in the Act No. 143 of 2008, published in the Gazette number 964 Congress 2008, p. 18. Approval of the report of the Congress on the presidential objections were made in the following terms:
"Address of the Presidency, Dr. Odin Sanchez Montes de Oca.
"Next item on the agenda
." (...)
"Honorable Representatives to the House and honorable Senators:
" Respectfully through this writing we pay report on the honorable task designated by the President of the Board of the House of Representatives on the presidential objections to the Draft law No. 077 of 2006 House, 190 2007 Senate, "by which rules on freight forwarders and transport groups vial control unify the local authorities and other provisions ".
"The report makes relevant considerations and ends with the following
" Proposition
"For the above considerations, we propose to the Plenary of the Senate and the Plenary of the House of Representatives approve this report and therefore not accept the objections raised by the Government to the bill by which rules on freight forwarders and transport groups and traffic control of local authorities are unified and other provisions are issued and submit the full text approved by the respective file to the honorable Constitutional Court (...).
"Firman, Alexander Lopez Maya, a Senator of the Republic, Jorge Enrique Gomez Celis, House Representative, Carlos Alberto Zuluaga Diaz, House Representative.
"It is a report of presidential objections.
"Submit report you Mr. President, to the Plenary.
"Address of the Presidency, Dr. Odin Sanchez Montes de Oca.
"In consideration of the report read, discussion, ad to be closed, is closed, you approve the report of the House of Representatives opens?
"Secretary General, Dr. Jesus C. Alfonso Rodriguez reports:
" Approved Mr. President. "
According to the certificate issued by the Secretary General of the Chamber, 157 participated in the meeting Representatives and the report on the objections was approved by most of those present.
Meanwhile, in the Senate, the report on the presidential objections was announced on October 21, 2008 for a vote - as stated in the Act No. 19 of 2008, published in the Gazette of Congress 28 2009, p. 30. The announcement was made as follows:
"The Presidency expresses:
" (...)

"On instructions of the President and in accordance with Legislative Act number 01 of 2003, the General Secretariat announced projects to be discussed and adopted at the next session.
"Yes Mr. President project to discuss and vote at the next plenary session the Senate are:
" objections Projects report:
"(...)
" Project law No. 190 of 2007 Senate Chamber 077 2006, "by which rules on traffic police and road transport and control groups territorial entities are unified and other provisions".
The project was approved by the Plenary of the Senate of the Republic on October 28, 2008, as certified by the Act No. 20, published in the Gazette of Congress 29, 2009, pp. 4 and 33-35. Approval of the report of the Congress on the presidential objections were made in the following terms:
"The Presidency instructs the Secretariat to continue with the following objection
Agenda." Draft law number 190 of 2007 Senate , 2006 077 House, by which rules on traffic police and road transport and control groups territorial entities are unified and other provisions. "
"The Presidency granted the floor to Senator Alexander López Maya.
"(...)
" The Chair opened the discussion of the report which declared unfounded the objections raised by the Executive and closed discussion, imparts the Senate unanimously approved. "
According to the certificate issued by the Secretary General of the Senate, the report was adopted unanimously by the 96 senators who attended the session.
In this way, since the two legislative chambers insisted that it would process the draft law objected, this was referred to the Constitutional Court to decide on its constitutionality.
The description of the selection process for the presidential discussed objections to the conclusion that the two conditions required for passing the Constitutional Court decision on the proposals objections, to settle the dispute arises between gather in this process the National government and the Congress on the constitutionality of the project. Thus, on the one hand, the bill was opposed by the Government on grounds of unconstitutionality, within the period prescribed by Article 166 of the Constitution, ie, six (6) days; and on the other, in accordance with the provisions of Article 167 of the Constitution, the Congress stressed the sanction of the bill, after rejecting the objections of unconstitutionality presented by the National Government.
4. Moreover, the Court considers it necessary to express on a concern that arises when reading the description of the legislative process for the project, based on whether this exceeded the maximum study period laid down in the Constitution. Article 162 of the Constitution provides:
"Article 162. The bills that have not completed their process in a legislature and which have received first debate in either chamber will continue its course in the next, in the State in which they are. No project will be considered in more than two terms. "
The bill analyzed here was filed on August 16, 2006 and was approved in the first debate in the Sixth Committee of the House of Representatives on November 7, 2006. As derived from the description the proceedings, the proceedings were suspended until October 2007, ie nearly a year, until, in the next legislature, was announced for consideration and debate in the plenary of the House and later was approved on it . After the plenary of the Senate considered and approved the draft on 11 June 2008. Since there were discrepancies between the texts approved by both legislative chambers, an Accidental Mediation Commission, whose report conciliation was approved by the Chamber was formed representatives and Senate of the Republic, on 18 and 19 June 2008 respectively.
This means that the project was considered and approved within two terms, as required by Article 162 transcribed. But since the project was challenged by the President of the Republic, the debate on the project has been extended beyond the period that set the two legislatures. So the question that arises is whether the constitutional mandate contained in Article 162 of the Charter was violated in the process of the project.

In this respect we can say that the Court has already referred several times to this question, to say that the process of presidential objections not included within the term of two terms referred to in Article 162 of the Constitution. Thus, in the judgment C-068 of 2004 was expressed on the point:
"This expression of Article 162 Superior must be understood in the sense that 'the two legislatures constitute the term has the Congress for the formation of the law, so such that any bill that takes the corresponding debates within that term, this aspect conforms to the constitutional mandate. Being also clear that these two terms not shelter the term available to the President to formulate their objections, then, if not, the Executive could alter you or delete you the opportunity to Congress assists to rule on the objections. "
5. To conclude this aside, it should be noted that the effects of res judicata of this judgment with regard to the analysis of the constitutionality of the procedure of the project is limited to the aspects studied in this apart, and does not extend to those on which no no analysis has been carried out.
Immediately afterwards, the Corporation will decide on the constitutionality of the provisions of the project, taking into consideration the objections raised by the Government.
The legal issues raised in the presidential
six objections. On this occasion, the Court must resolve two legal problems, which were raised by the Government in its objections to the Draft Law No. 190 of 2007 Senate 077 2006 House, "by which rules on agents are unified transit and road transport and control groups of local authorities and other provisions ".
The first is whether Article 151 of the Constitution, which provides that the exercise of legislative activity is subject to organic laws passed by Congress violated in the process of the project. Specifically, the Court must establish whether the Constitution was violated in the process of the project, since their study began in the Sixth Committees of the Congress and not the First, as the national government considers that should have happened.
The second question that the Court must resolve is whether Articles 1st and 2nd project violated Articles 300, paragraph 7, and 313, paragraph 6, because those rules would impose project to departmental assemblies and municipal councils the creation of a specific type of public entities to comply with traffic control and transportation within their jurisdiction, which territorial autonomy to determine its organizational structure be violated.
The processing of the bill did not infringe Article 151 of the Constitution
7. The clause 2 of Article 142 of the Constitution provides that "[t] he law shall determine the number of Standing Committees and their members as well as the materials of each should address". In turn, Article 151 of the Charter provides that "[t] he Congress will issue organic laws which shall be subject to the exercise of legislative activity. Through them the regulations of Congress and each of the chambers (...) "will be established.
Based on the stated constitutional mandates, the legislator issued Law 3rd 1992, "for which standards committees of Congress are issued Colombia and other provisions". In article 1 it was decided that in each of the chambers would work Constitutional Standing Committees, Legal Fees, commissions and other commissions Unintentional. Then in article 2 it states that in the two legislative chambers will operate seven (7) Commissions Constitutional Standing, "in charge of the first reading of the draft legislative act or law concerning matters within its competence" [2]. For this case it is of interest to transcribe related asides First and Sixth Committees and paragraphs of the article:
"Article 2. (amended by article 1 of Law 754 of 2002 text). Both the Senate and the House of Representatives Permanent Constitutional Commissions work, responsible for the first reading of the draft legislative act or law concerning matters within its competence.
"The Constitutional Standing Committees in each of the Houses shall be seven (7) namely:
" First Committee.

"Composed of nineteen (19) members in the Senate and thirty-five (35) in the House of Representatives shall hear: constitutional reform; statutory laws; Territorial organization; regulations of control agencies; general rules on government procurement; notary and registration; structure and organization of the central national administration; rights, guarantees and duties; legislative branch; strategies and policies for peace; intellectual property; variation of the residence of the high national powers; ethnic issues.
"(...)
" Sixth Committee.
"Comprised of thirteen (13) members in the Senate and eighteen (18) members in the House of Representatives shall hear: communications; rates; public calamities; public functions and provision of public services; media; scientific and technological research; electromagnetic spectrum; geostationary orbit; digital communication and computer systems; air space; public works and transport; tourism and tourism development; education and culture.
"(...)
" Paragraph 1o. To resolve conflicts of jurisdiction between the Commissions shall prevail the principle of specialty.
"Paragraph 2o. When matter which concerned the bill, is not clearly assigned to a committee, the President of the respective Chamber, send it to that which, in their opinion, is competent to hear related matters ". (Materials that give rise to controversy discussed in the present process are underlined).
8. In the Judgment C-648 of 1997, the Court ruled on a claim of unconstitutionality filed against several articles of Law 318 of 1996, "by which mechanisms to manage financial resources for the fulfillment of commitments establishing the bodies international financial, the Colombian Agency for International cooperation is created and other arrangements for the promotion of international cooperation are dictated. " Among the charges was the demand that the creation of the Colombian International Cooperation Agency through the project required that the same would have been transacted in the First and the Fourth Commissions no commissions, as had been done.
In its judgment, the Court stated that "the violation of the provisions of that Article 2 of Law 3rd 1992, carries a vice of constitutional significance, which would lead to the declaration of unconstitutionality of the statute irregularly processed ". Also, in the providence stated that "laws that have been processed in the first debate by a Constitutional Commission Permanent lacks jurisdiction to deal with matters covered by the respective law is unconstitutional because it violates the provisions of Article 151 of the Letter. Indeed, this rule makes the exercise of legislative activity to the provisions of an organic law, which, in the competencies of the Standing Constitutional Committees of the Congress, is for purposes of judicial review and the warning issued in that judgment, Law 3rd 1992. "
But in that case, the Court upheld the constitutionality of the challenged norms in relation to that position. He noted in this regard that the law that was analyzed concerned various topics, and therefore could have been known by various Permanent Constitutional Commissions. He clarified that for those situations Legislator had anticipated that the President of the respective Chamber send the project to that committee, at its discretion, outside the jurisdiction. Based on the above stated about the scope of judicial review in these situations:
. "8 In cases where the matters covered by a specific bill not are clearly assigned to a specific Constitutional Commission Permanent and therefore, the President of the respective corporation assign the process the commission deems appropriate, respect for the democratic principle requires that the judgment made by the said officer should be respected by the constitutional court, unless that assignment is manifestly unreasonable competition by openly contravening the provisions of Article 2 of Law 3rd 1992. Only in that event judge of the Charter could replace the decision of the President of the Senate or House of Representatives, decreeing the unconstitutionality on procedural law in question ".

9. Later in the Judgment C-792 of 2000, the Court declared unfounded the high presidential objections to a bill approved by the Congress, in which "authorization to tax payers' property tax was granted unified in the Capital District. " In the objections it raised that the project had been discussed at the First Commissions, even though its content was strictly tax, why should have been dealt with in the Third Committees of the Legislative Chambers.
In its judgment, the Court stated that "the nature of the tax bill under consideration is evident. And from this point of view assists reason the Government that the Third Constitutional Standing Committees of each chamber had a vocation to abocar their initial discussion, because of the matter. " However, the Court noted that the purpose of the project was to amend Decree 1421 of 1993, "Whereby the special regime for the Capital Bogotá District dictates," especially the provisions contained in Article 155, based on the tax unified property tax in the city. Thus, he considered that, as Decree 1421 of 1993 related to the territorial organization, "the amendment by law of that statute implies that the relevant bill must first be studied by the Permanent Constitutional First Commissions of both chambers, as thematically related matters are territorial organization of its business, as indicated by Article 2 of Law 3rd, 1992 ... ".
The Corporation found, then, that the draft law referred objected to matters "that are the responsibility both of the first commissions as the Third Constitutional Standing of the legislative chambers." He added that this situation made inoperative go to the specialty to define what the committee responsible, why the President of the corresponding Legislature could decide at their discretion, which Commission was to study the project. Thus, the Court concluded that "the allocation made by the president of the respective legislature, has the virtue of defining the jurisdiction of the Commission to start the process, and this decision has to sit, unless it is unreasonable. Therefore, the Constitutional First Commissions of both Houses, under the deal that was made them the project under review, cast verified in accordance with paragraph of Article 2 of Law 3rd 1992 were competent to give first debate This project ".
10. Subsequently, in the judgment C-540 of 2001, the Court settled a lawsuit against Law 617 of 2000, "by which partially reform the Law 136 of 1994, the Special Decree 1222 of 1986, the Organic Budget Law is added, Decree 1421 of 1993, other rules aimed at strengthening decentralization dictate, and standards for the rationalization of national public spending are issued ".
The law was sued in its entirety. One of the charges submitted by the applicant was that the law had been debated and approved by the Permanent First Commissions, and not in Cuartas as he considered the applicant should have been done, because with it had added the Organic Law of the budget.
After highlighting the importance of the distribution of work between the various Standing Committees of the Legislative [3] Chambers, the Court stated that "in many cases the distribution of bills for approval in the first debate is about, due to the special conditions of the content of each project. While Law 3rd 1992 makes a thematic distribution among the standing committees, the breadth and variety of constitutional principles to be developed by law and the dynamics and specificity of each subject require some flexibility when distributing the bills for his study and approval process in the first debate. " For this reason, he said that "in the event that the constitutionality of laws study whose content the feeling of belonging to two or more permanent constitutional commissions in accordance with the physical distribution of Law 3rd 1992, control of constitutionality is exercised must be flexible (...) the Constitution and the Laws 3rd and 5th 1992 enshrine precepts that allow reasonable flexibility in the appointment of the Commission to approve the first reading the bills. "
Then he said that it should investigate the dominant issue in the project in these cases:

"When the debate concerns the constitutionality competence or incompetence of a permanent commission to process a bill, it is essential to point out what should be the dominant criterion to be applied by the President of the respective Chamber to refer the project to the committee.
"The Court considers that, in identifying the material nature of a bill to send it to the Standing Committee, if you doubt this must be resolved is generated from the purpose of the law and not based on a quantitative criterion or mathematical. Not necessarily the highest number of items relating to the same subject within the project which becomes the prevailing criterion for making the decision, they may be cases where the thematic essence of the project is excerpt of some of its articles only .
"Thus, to appreciate the scope of the term 'respective committee' Article 157 of the Constitution, must be assumed in a material sense, referring to the subject and purpose of the law and this will be the criterion to determine the Standing Committee to which the draft is submitted for processing in the first debate. "
Based on the above, it concluded that the law was constitutional, on the charge studied, since "the purpose of the rule is not to reform the Organic Budget Law but affect the issue of territorial organization ... ".
With regard to the point about what approach should use the Court to determine whether the decision of the President of a Chamber of sending a bill to a Constitutional Commission constituted a procedural defect, the statement reiterated that "events where there is doubt about the Standing Committee to which the project must be filed, the vice will be generated in the process if there is lack of a reasonable decision. (...) Anyway, if you were to admit even the Speaker of the House could go wrong in the distribution of the bill, there was an incomprehensible or unreasonable mistake, therefore, it is admissible who has submitted to the first Committee for processing in the first debate. "
Thus, the Court concluded:
"In short, the distribution of bills in the Standing Committees for approval in the first debate will depend on the dominant subject in each case, be allowed the same project containing topics directly or indirectly assigned to other committees but are related to each other. The criteria employed by the Act specialty 3rd 1992 to mark the subjects who know the Constitutional Standing Committees should be applied according to the specific content and purpose of each bill. In case of reasonable doubt, the Speaker of the House where it has filed the project will use consecrated in paragraph 2 O, Article 2 of Law 3rd 1992 faculty and, at its discretion, send it to the committee responsible " .
11. In the Judgment C-975 of 2002, the Court declared the unconstitutionality of Law 719 of 2001, "Whereby Law 23 of 1982 amending and 44 of 1993 and other provisions".
In its judgment the Court reaffirmed that judicial review should be flexible when it came to the definition of the Standing Constitutional Committee competent to discuss a bill:
"Therefore, in those cases where matters regulated in a bill does not appear clearly assigned to a particular and specific commission or they can be studied by several of them, and the President of the respective congressional cell has arranged shipment to the commission considers appropriate in view of its thematic affinity, in compliance with respect for the democratic principle, judicial review that later in this cause should be flexible, so that only can be considered the declaration of unconstitutionality of the provision, when assigning competition is unreasonable and clearly contrary to the normative content of Article 2 of Law 3rd 1992. Only in the latter case said the Court--what, "the judge of the Charter could replace the decision of the President of the Senate or House of Representatives, decreeing inexequibilidad on procedural law in question ".

"Accordingly, in the judgments of unconstitutionality where the competence or incompetence of a standing committee controvert to process and approve on first reading a bill, for which there is reasonable doubt about the fate that this should continue, the criteria for defining what is the commission which had to refer the project is eminently materials; ie, based on the theme and the objective pursued by the law, which is relevant that among the various subjects dealt one has a greater number of items. This, notwithstanding that, in all other cases, deliberate and inadvertent failure to observe the powers defined in Article 2 of Law 1992 3rd necessarily lead to the declaration of unconstitutionality of the accused text ".
But in this case the Court concluded that Congress had committed procedural errors in the formation of the law, because the project had been discussed at a different permanent constitutional commission indicated. In this regard it concluded that the dominant field of intellectual property law was -the modification of the right of author regime, why the project should have been dealt with in the First Commissions, and not the Sixth Commissions, as had happened. To this he said that "warning that Article 2 of Law 3rd 1992 expressly provides that the First Committees Constitutional Permanent jurisdiction to hear and process in first debate the bills related to the 'intellectual property', finds that the Court any existed a reasonable doubt, and less a principle of sufficient reason, for the President of the House of Representatives assigned to the Sixth Standing Committees processing the bill culminated in the enactment of law 719 of 2001 ".
12. Finally, in the Sentence C-1040 of 2004, the Court examined the constitutionality of various articles of Law 814 of 2003, "By establishing rules for the promotion of the film industry in Colombia are issued".
The law had been partially defendant, since had been discussed at the Standing Committees of the Senate and House Sextas, although within the instruments envisaged for the promotion of film included the creation of a quasi-fiscal contribution and a fund for administration. For this reason, the complainant considered that should have been dealt with in the Third Standing Committees - competent for tax matters.
In the judgment, the Court found that the central subject of the project was the national cinema and, consequently, culture, and that "the parafiscal contribution is only one means to promote such cultural activity at the national level" . Consequently, he declared the constitutionality of rules demanded by the analyzed office.
13. As can be seen, the case law of the Court has ruled that breach of the rules of the Law 3rd 1992 pointing competition of each of the permanent constitutional commissions of the legislative chambers generates the declaration of unconstitutionality of the applicable law. The Corporation has indicated that in examining the claims of unconstitutionality based on the argument that the project is not dealt with in the competent Standing Constitutional Commission, it is essential to try to establish what is the central subject of the project. However, the Court itself has recognized that in many cases can not be determined clearly what should be the responsible Commission to process a draft specific law, why constitutional control that is carried out in this field should be flexible. Therefore, it indicated that for the sake of democratic principle, the control carried out on the decision of the President of a Legislature to allocate a bill to a committee is a control unreasonableness so that those allocations may only be declared unconstitutional when there is no reasonable doubt that the Commission should know about the project or a principle of reason for the President of a Legislative House has awarded a project to a particular Commission.

14. The bill number 077 2006 House, 190 2007 Senate, "by which rules on freight forwarders and transport groups and traffic control of local authorities are unified and other provisions" refers to various matters related with transit and transportation agents. The rules are organized into four chapters, namely: one of general provisions, one on the hierarchy and creating positions in the bodies of traffic, a third on the moralization of the bodies of traffic police and the system of citizen participation, and the last on uniforms, their use and final provisions.
So in the project include rules concerning:
- The professionalization of the activity of traffic and transport agent and the need for a comprehensive academic training is provided to agents for which provides that transit agencies can create non-formal schools in charge of that academic training or contract with recognized public universities (article 3).
- The delimitation of the jurisdictions of the various transit authorities, without prejudice to the cooperation to be provided (article 4).
- Determining each transit agency will have a single specialized body of traffic and transport agents that act only in their respective jurisdiction, whose functions may not be delegated and may not be contracting with individuals ( article 4).
- The general functions entrusted to the bodies of traffic police and transport of local authorities, being permanent tasks of judicial police, educational, preventive, to act in solidarity and civic surveillance ( article 5).
- The determination that the profession of a traffic policeman belongs to the administrative career and fixing the different degrees of the same (Article 6).
- Determining the requirements to enter the bodies of traffic police and transport of local authorities (Article 7th).
- The responsibility of transit bodies to ensure their moralizing, for which its obligation to establish courts or ethics committees to issue concepts that must be attended by the heads of the offices of transit (article 9 states ).
- The obligation of transit bodies to develop systems for citizen participation (Article 10).
- The creation of the Transit Commission and Citizen Participation, which will guide and oversee the relations between citizens, the traffic police and administrative authorities, along with the determination of the members thereof and the functions to be performed (articles 11-13).
- The determination that the National Government will issue the corresponding regulations the use of uniforms, designs and other aspects aimed at facilitating the identification of traffic agents in local authorities and the obligation of institutions to supply transit its agents three free annual allocations (Article 14).
- The determination that the National Government will regulate the law within 90 days of its entry into force (Article 15).
As noted, the bill covers many topics, related to the professionalization of the activity of forwarding agents and linking these to the administrative career; the bodies of territorial transit; the moralization of the bodies of transit and the creation of systems of citizen participation to guide and facilitate the relations between citizens, transit agents of local authorities and administrative authorities; uniforms and badges of the officers; and the regulation of the law.
The President of the Chamber decided that the draft law was submitted by the Sixth Permanent Commission, which has among its functions to learn about projects related to transportation. This decision is reproached by the national government, which considers her Article 151 of the Constitution, because the project had to be initially known by the First Committee of the House was violated.

In the objections the National Government asserts, as already noted, that while the project concerns the traffic police does not mean that your topic is the transport sector. In this regard shows that the project background is clear from the objective of the project is to "mark the location, name, among other requirements transit agents within the administrative structure in local authorities". Thus it says the project should have been submitted to the First Committee, which is responsible for the theme of "structure and organization of the central national administration."
The Court shares the opinion that several of the draft articles are referred to "the location, name, among other requirements transit agents within the administrative structure in local authorities". However, as we have seen, the objective of the project does not end there, as it includes other issues relating to transit authorities, bodies transit and their functions, to the moralization of the same and citizen participation in these issues. This indicates that the subject of the project is not perfectly confined to a Commission and that, therefore, the President of the House of Representatives could send to that which, in their opinion, was competent. The President decided to refer it to the Sixth Committee, based on the premise that the project was related to the issue of transportation.
Now, in accordance with the case law that has been described, when it is not absolutely clear which corresponds permanent constitutional commission to study a particular project law, judicial review carried out by the Court on the allocation must be flexible in order to respect the decision of the President of the corresponding Legislature. Therefore, in these cases the Court can only declare that the procedure was unconstitutional project when the project was awarded to a particular permanent constitutional commission is clearly unreasonable. That is not the situation presented in this case, as the reading of the bill being analyzed becomes clear that the issue of transport through all its rules, which means that the allocation thereof to the Commissions Sextas Constitutional Permanent is reasonable .
Therefore, the Court declared unfounded the high presidential objection to the bill based on the charge that is not processed in the Permanent Constitutional Commission he belongs.
The bill does not infringe Articles 300-7 and 313-6 of the Constitution
15. In the letter of presidential objections also it states, as has been said, that the articles 1st and 2nd of the bill violated paragraph 7 of Article 300 of the Charter and paragraph 6 of Article 313, because they impose on the authorities departmental and municipal model public entity to direct and control traffic and transport in their jurisdiction, which interfere with the determination of the structures of departmental and municipal administrations.
The above constitutional provisions are almost identical in wording and refer to the power of representative assemblies to determine the structure of territorial administration and create the institutions they deem appropriate. They establish:
"Article 300. Corresponds to the departmental assemblies, by ordinance:
" (...)
. "7 Determining the structure of the departmental administration, the functions of their offices, pay scales corresponding to various categories of jobs; creating public facilities and industrial or commercial enterprises department and authorize the formation of mixed companies ".
"Article 313. It is up to councils:
(...)
." 6 Determining the structure of the municipal administration and the duties of its units; remuneration scales for the various categories of employment; create, at the initiative of the mayor, public facilities and industrial or commercial enterprises and authorize the creation of mixed companies ".
16. Article 1 of the Constitution states that "Colombia is a Social State organized as a unitary republic, decentralized with autonomous territorial entities ...".

From the above definition the question about what the boundaries between the powers of the nation and the powers of local authorities are arises. Even more so when it is noted that Article 287 of the Constitution provides that "[t] he territorial entities enjoy autonomy for the management of their interests and within the limits of the Constitution and the law" and that the same article mentions between the rights arising from territorial autonomy to "exercise the powers which they are entitled." In turn, Article 288 of the Constitution provides that "[t] he powers conferred on the various territorial levels shall be exercised in accordance with the principles of coordination, competition and subsidiarity in the terms established by law.
In its various judgments, the Court has been careful to establish how operates the interrelationship between the principles of unity and autonomy. Thus, the C535 Judgment 1996, the Court established that the principles of unity and autonomy "must be harmonized" and "autonomy must be understood as the capacity enjoyed by local authorities to manage their own interests within the limits of the Constitution and the law. " Therefore, also he said that "the autonomy of local authorities is not configured as a sovereign power but explained in a unitary context" and that "the core of autonomy is restricted by the Legislator".
In this regard, the Court has determined that task Legislator define spaces of autonomy of local authorities, under the respected certain limits. Thus, in the judgment C-1187 of 2000, the Court stated that "the Constitution did not define the degree of autonomy attributed to local authorities, the legislature delegating such competition. So, the degree of autonomy that local authorities in the Colombian State, the law qualifies directly. In other words, territorial autonomy is relative, since it is conceived within a unitary state. " And then in 1258 Providence C-2001, the Court concluded that "[e] 1 legislature is authorized to set the scope of territorial autonomy within the minimum and maximum limits indicated by the Constitution at one extreme, the core essential, and on the other, the limit given by the unitary nature of the state, which may not exceed. Between these two limits the legislature, in exercising its power configuration, moves to set the degree of autonomy in each subject or issue by local authorities ".
17. The above guidelines have also been applied by the Constitutional Court when it has analyzed the constitutionality of national rules on transport are accused of interfering within the scope of powers of local authorities. In the Judgment C-931 of 2006 the constitutionality of a rule stating that the Ministry of Transport would set guidelines for the creation, operation and removal of transit agencies [4], why demand made sure we studied that the provision violated the territorial autonomy. In the judgment it was stated that within the core of the autonomy of local authorities defining their administrative structure, reason why this could not be altered by the Legislator was:
"In this scheme, for distribution of powers between the national government and the local authorities, the legislature must take into account that the essential content of autonomy focuses on the ability to manage one's own interests (CP Article 287), one of whose most important manifestations is the right to act through its own bodies in the administration and the Government of the affairs of regional or local interest. Such law expressly contained in Article 287 Superior, is part of the essential core of autonomy, restricted by the legislature, and is complemented by the provisions of Articles 300-7 and 313-6 of the Constitution according to which corresponds to local authorities to determine the structure of their administrations, creating dependencies it deemed necessary and correlative SETTING tHE FOLLOWING functions.

"Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is clear that, to preserve the national interest and the unitary principle for the legislature to establish the basic conditions of autonomy and defining, respecting the principle of subsidiarity, the powers of the national order to be developed accordance with the principle of coordination, which implies uniform rules and guidelines for action that without eviscerate the field of territorial autonomy, allow harmonization of functions ".
Based on the above, in the same statement it indicated that "under the principle of subsidiarity, the organization and management related to traffic and transportation is, within their respective jurisdictions, primary competition of local authorities, which subject to the law and exercising their autonomy may create administrative units they deem necessary for that purpose. Such authorities, for the exercise of its own powers, functions they are assigned by the law and they delegated by the Government, they must act subject to the principle of coordination to ensure the coordination of national and territorial levels. "
So, in the judgment the Court ruled that unconstitutional the terms "creation" and "cancellation" because "regional transit agencies are entities of municipal, district or territorial order, creation and deletion corresponds to the municipal and district councils and departmental assemblies. " On the contrary, it determined that it was constitutional that the Ministry will set guidelines for the operation of transit agencies, because that allocation was within the "scope of the unit-autonomy tension" as long as the guidelines that dictate the Ministry had a technical and concerned national level functions to be executed by transit agencies, either because the law established or because the Government had decided delegárselas character.
A similar decision did the Court in Ruling C-1051 of 2001, in which the constitutionality of a rule of Law 53 of 1989 [5], which stated examined that "[f] or the creation of municipal transit agencies prior favorable concept level departmental planning offices "will be required. In its judgment the Court reaffirmed the autonomy of local authorities to decide on its management structure. Then he said that while it was possible that the law imposed on local authorities a duty to listen to the Offices of Departmental Planning before taking the decision to create transit agencies, the concept of the latter could not have a binding character, as it was unaware of the autonomy of the municipal councils to establish the administrative structure of the municipality. Based on this he concluded that it was unconstitutional the "favorable" word.
18. As noted, the Court has considered that while the legislature is entitled to regulate the issue of transport, as is authorized by the same numeral 25 of Article 150 of the Charter, which provides that it is up to Congress, "[u] ning the rules on traffic police throughout the territory of the Republic "- that power can not affect the core of the right to territorial autonomy with respect to territorial entities to determine its administrative structure.
Well, in the presidential objection is manifested precisely which Article 2 of the bill and by extension also the 1o- violate the allocation of local authorities to determine its administrative structure. The Government states that article 2 imposes on the assemblies and councils obliged to create public entities to control traffic and transport, which would mean that they have to take a particular entity model for traffic management, which move away from the traditional formula of the secretariats of transit.

This reproach was not accepted by the Congress or by the Public Ministry. Congress said the project aims to regulate transit agencies and do not provide for the creation of new ones, and therefore it abstract and general terms that encompass the different forms that can take transit agencies are used. Therefore stresses that the article speaks of public entities, without referring to any specific form of them. For this reason, it considers that he can not claim that through the project the Legislator is interfering in the management structure of local authorities. This concept is shared by the Attorney, who also ensures that the project objective is to unify the regulations on traffic control at local level, matter found within the functional orbit of the Lawgiver.
For analysis of the charges brought objection is appropriate to recall the content of the articles 1st and 2nd of the bill.
"Article 1o. Area of ​​application. The rules contained in this Act shall apply to transit agencies and transportation and forwarding agents and transport of territory.
"Article 2.. Definition. For the application and interpretation of this law, the following definitions shall apply:
"Traffic and Transportation Organizations: These are public entities municipal, district or departmental whose function is to organize, direct and control traffic and transport in their respective jurisdiction.
"Traffic and Transportation Authority: Any public entity or public employee who is accredited pursuant to article 3 of Law 769 of 2002
" Agent Traffic and Transportation: All public employee vested with authority to regulate the flow vehicular and pedestrian, monitor, control and intervene in compliance with traffic rules and transportation in each of the local authorities.
"Group or Body Control Road Traffic Police: Group of public employees vested with authority as agents of transit and transport and related legal regulations to transit agencies and transportation.
As already indicated, the National Government objects article 2, but extends its constitutional reproach to article 1, because this provision indicates that the rules contained in the law will apply to all transit agencies and transportation and freight forwarders and transport of the territory. But the arguments contained in the objections it follows that in fact the position expressed therein specifically refers to the addition of Article 2 refers to transit agencies and transportation, as in the presidential rebuke is manifest that through article 2 is obliges local authorities to create "a certain form of entity to direct and control traffic and transport, when present, in most local authorities, these functions are being carried out by the respective secretariats of transit. Obviously, this charge is adjusted only to that paragraph of the 2nd article.
Well, the Court does not consider reading objected regulatory provision can be deduced that the rule imposes on territorial authorities the obligation to create an entity for managing traffic within their jurisdiction or benefit from a model transit authority designated by the Legislator. The paragraph merely provides a general definition, within which fit the different types of existing institutional arrangements in local authorities to fulfill their role of "organize, direct and control traffic and transport in their respective jurisdiction". In this regard, the Court shares the position of Congress about the concepts used in the 2nd article of the project are general and abstract, so that they understand many possible ways of designing the entity responsible traffic control and transportation in the territory.
Regard it is important to note that the standard is alleged against an almost identical text available to the National Code of-the Transit Law 769 of 2002, "Whereby the National Land Transit Code is issued and other provisions" - defining the concept of "transit agency." Says the relevant separate the 2nd article:
"Article 2o. Definitions. For the application and interpretation of this code, the following definitions shall apply:
"(...)

"Transit agencies: Are municipal district or departmental administrative units with by regulation function of organizing and directing related to traffic and transport in their respective jurisdiction" [6].
Addition, the standard does not modify Article 6 of the National Traffic Code, which establishes which transit agencies are in different jurisdictions:
"Article 6o. Transit agencies. They will transit agencies in their respective jurisdiction:
"a) The administrative departments, district institutes and / or municipal transit;
"B) The designated solely by the local authority in municipalities where no transit authority;
"C) The municipal departments of traffic within the urban area of ​​the respective municipality and the districts;
"D) The transit district secretariats within the urban area of ​​special districts;
"E) The departmental secretaries transit or body designated by the authority solely and exclusively in municipalities where no transit authority.
"Paragraph 1o. At the national level it will be competent the Ministry of Transport and transit agencies in their respective jurisdiction to perform the duties they are assigned in this code.
"Paragraph 2o. It is up to the National Police in its specialized body control road traffic rules and the application of this code on all national roads outside the urban perimeter of municipalities and districts.
"Paragraph 3o. The governors and mayors, the departmental assemblies and the municipal councils, may not, under any circumstances dictate traffic rules permanent, involving additions or modifications to the Traffic Code.
"The Mayors within their respective jurisdiction shall issue rules and take the necessary measures for better management of movement of people, animals and vehicles on public roads subject to the provisions of this code.
"But the mayors of neighboring or adjacent municipalities may enter into inter-administrative agreements to jointly exercise, wholly or partially, transit functions that correspond to each of them, within their respective jurisdictions that make up" [ 7].
Now, as noted, Article 6 of the National Traffic Code establishes the possibility that transit agencies are of different forms, among which is the municipal traffic departments. In this sense, no reason the argument in the presidential objection to the standard under the objection prevents municipalities continue to trust management traffic within their jurisdiction to the secretariats of transit. But also, the text of Article 6 of the Code follows that very diverse, such as administrative traffic departments, secretariats traffic and even designated local authorities in municipalities or departments [8] institutional where there is tránsito9 authority.
Accordingly, the Court does not find that in the 2nd article of the draft Legislator is violating the autonomy of local authorities, the rule does not interfere with the function of local authorities to determine their administrative structure, or impose them specific model of transit and transportation agency.
Therefore, in this case it shall be declared that the objection is unfounded.
VII. DECISION
In light of the foregoing, the Plenary Chamber of the Constitutional Court, on behalf of the people and by mandate of the Constitution, Resolves
:
First. Declare unfounded the objections of unconstitutionality made by the President of the Republic against the Draft Law No. 190 of 2007 Senate 077 2006 House, "by which rules on freight forwarders and transport groups and traffic control entities are unified territorial and other provisions ".
Second. Consequently, declaring constitutional the bill number 190 2007 Senate 077 2006 House, "by which rules on freight forwarders and transport groups and traffic control of local authorities are unified and other provisions" only the charges raised in the objections discussed in this statement.
Third. Give yourself compliance with the provisions of Article 167 of the Constitution.
Notified, communicated, published, inserted in the Gazette of the Constitutional Court and filed the record.

Nilson Pinilla Pinilla, President (excused absence); Juan Carlos Henao Pérez, María Victoria Street Correa, Luis Ernesto Vargas Silva, Gabriel Eduardo Mendoza Martelo, Mauricio Gonzalez Cuervo, Jorge Ignacio Pretelt Chaljub, Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto, Jorge Ivan Palacio Palacio, Judges; Martha Victoria Sáchica of Moncaleano, General Secretary.
Judgment C-306109.

* * * 1. See, for example, Case C-731 of 2008, C-482 and C-2008 1249 2001
2. Article 2 of Law 3rd 1992 was amended by Act 754 of 2002, "by which Article 2 of Law 3rd 1992 amending, as regards the composition of the Permanent Constitutional Commissions".
3. In this regard it was concluded in the judgment that "the distribution of work in Congress has deep democratic and efficiency in compliance with the legislative function connotations".
4. The standard defendant was the 1st paragraph of Article 18 of Law 1005 of 2006, which added and modified the Terrestrial National Traffic Code (Law 769 of 2002). The text of paragraph defendant was as follows: "The Ministry of Transport shall determine the guidelines that transit agencies to establish, operate and cancellation must hold". In its judgment the Court stated, first, that the rule was poorly drafted, why it was necessary to make a number of clarifications on it. Thus, it stated that, according to the wording, the recipients of the guidelines of the Ministry would transit agencies, when it was apparent that the guidelines were directed "to the authorities at the territorial level are competent for creating agency transit" . He also clarified that should be understood that the rule was referring to the suppression of public entities - and not the cancellation thereof.
5. "By which functions are assigned to the National Institute of Transport, related to the automotive land transit across the country are added and are granted extraordinary powers to reform the National Land Transit Code".
6. The Court has not ruled on this definition.
7. It is important to note that the Court only ruled on the 1st paragraph of paragraph 3rd of this article, which was declared constitutional by the charges analyzed, in Judgment C-568
2003. 8. The literal e) provides: "e) The departmental secretaries transit or body designated by the authority solely and exclusively in municipalities where no transit authority". Everything would indicate that there is an error in referring this subsection to municipalities, since departments should deal with.
9. The article 3 of the Code defines which traffic authorities are:
"Article 3o. Transit authorities. They are transit authorities in order, the following:
"The Ministry of Transport.
"Governors and Mayors.
"Transit agencies departmental, municipal or district.
"The National Police in its specialized police forces urban traffic and highway police.
"Police Inspectors, Inspectors Transit, Corregidores or person acting in each local authority.
"The Superintendency of Ports and Transport.
"The military forces to meet only the provisions of the 5th paragraph of this article.
"Agents of Traffic and Transportation. (...) ".

Related Laws