1352 OF 2009

(August 14)

Official Journal No. 47.441 of 14 August 2009

CONGRESS OF THE REPUBLIC

By means of which the Nation is associated with the celebration of the thirty (30) years of academic activities of the People's University of Caesar, and other provisions are dictated.

COLOMBIA CONGRESS

DECRETA:

ARTICLE 1o. The Nation is associated with the celebration of the thirty (30) years of legal existence of the University of Caesar and exalts the virtues of its directives, teachers, students and graduates.

ARTICLE 2o. As of the enactment of this law and in accordance with Articles 334, 339, 341 and 345 of the Political Constitution, the National Government is authorized to include within the General Budget the Budget appropriations that are required and/or promoted through of the National System of Co-financing, to be linked to the commemoration of the People's University of Cesar, as well as for the execution of the infrastructure works in the different headquarters of the University, related to the fulfillment of the minimum conditions and quality standards required by the Ministry of National Education for Colombian universities, such as:

CENTRAL SEDE

a) Construction and laboratory equipment for academic experimentation.

b) Adequation and endowment Library.

c) Construction and endowment of a comprehensive computational platform for the improvement of administrative, security and virtual education processes.

d) Construction of four (4) academic blocks.

e) Building Administrative Building.

f) Building Auditorium Theatre.

g) General Services Area Construction.

h) Construction and adequacy of a Polyportive (Multiple Court).

i) Construction of Bakers.

j) Maintenance of Physical Infrastructure.

k) High-quality teacher training.

AGUACHICA HEADQUARTERS

a) Construction and endowment of laboratories for academic experimentation.

b) Building Block Laboratories (A and B).

c) Construction and endowment of a comprehensive computational platform for the improvement of administrative, security and virtual education processes.

d) Building Block of Classrooms.

e) Construction and endowment Pilot Plant for the Engineering Program

Agroindustrial.

f) Construction and laboratory equipment for academic experimentation.

g) Bibliographic and Hemeroteca Resource Endowment.

h) Furniture and Enseres, Office Equipment and Others.

i) Building the sectional enclosure.

j) Construction and adequacy of a Polyportive (Multiple Court).

k) Purchase of Equipment for the Audiovisual Room.

l) Acquisition of 2 buses for the Sectional.

m) High-quality teacher training.

ARTICLE 3o. This law governs from its enactment and repeals all provisions that are contrary to it.

The President of the honorable Senate of the Republic,

JAVIER ENRIQUE CÁCERES LEAL.

The Secretary General of the honorable Senate of the Republic,

EMILIO RAMON OTERO DAJUD.

The President of the honorable House of Representatives,

EDGAR ALFONSO GOMEZ ROMAN.

The Secretary General of the honorable House of Representatives,

JESUS ALFONSO RODRIGUEZ CAMARGO.

COLOMBIA-NATIONAL GOVERNMENT

Publish and comply.

In compliance with the provisions of the 2009 C-323 judgment handed down by the Constitutional Court, the bill is passed, as the corporation orders the referral of the case to the Congress of the Republic, to continue the legislative process of rigor and its subsequent submission to the President of the Republic for the effect of the corresponding sanction.

Dada in Bogotá, D. C., on August 14, 2009.

ALVARO URIBE VELEZ

The Minister of Finance and Public Credit,

OSCAR IVAN ZULUAGA ESCOBAR.

The Minister of National Education,

CECILIA MARIA VELEZ WHITE.

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

C-323/09 statement

Reference: Expedient OP-121

Presidential Objections to Bill No. 164 of 2006 House, 074 of 2007 Senate, by means of which the Nation is associated with the celebration of the thirty (30) years of academic activities of the People's University of Cease and other provisions are dictated.

Judge Rapporteur: Doctor Jorge Ivan Palacio Palacio

Bogotá, D. C., thirteen (13) May two thousand nine (2009).

The Full Court of the Constitutional Court, in exercise of its constitutional and legal powers, in particular those provided for in Articles 167 and href="policy_constitution_1991_pr008.html#241"> 241 numeral 8 of the Political Constitution, and completed all the formalities and requirements referred to in Decree 2067 of 1991, propose the following:

STATEMENT

I. BACKGROUND

By trade received by the General Secretariat of this Corporation on two (2) February of two thousand nine (2009), the President of the Senate of the Republic brought the Bill of Law No. 164 of 2006 Chamber, 074 of 2007 Senate, , whose article 2o was objected to by the National Government. for reasons of unconstitutionality.

For the corresponding distribution, the case was sent for substantiation of the eleven (11) February of two thousand nine (2009). The following February 16 (16) became aware of the process and the Secretaries-General of the Senate of the Republic and the House of Representatives were asked to send the evidence corresponding to the legislative procedure followed for the approval of the report on presidential objections. The Legal Secretariat of the Presidency of the Republic was also officiated to send the certification of the exact date in which the bill was received from the Congress of the Republic and the exact date on which it was based in the Congress the corresponding objections, accompanying the constances of rigor.

Because the totality of the evidence necessary to verify whether the approval of the objections report was completed in due time, the Court of Justice of the Court of Justice of the Court of Justice of the European Union of February 25, 2009, by which abstained from deciding on objections as long as constitutional and legal budgets were not met to do so. In the same providence, the Chamber made the following procedure conditional on the verification, by the Judge Substantiador, that the evidence on the processing of the presidential objections to the draft of the reference was made.

Following the requirements of the Secretary General of the Senate, the evidence necessary to continue with the process of constitutional control in the case of the reference was left to the record, which is why the Magistrate Substantiador arranged to move forward with the process.

II. TEXT OF THE CONTESTED BILL

Then the Court transcribes the final text, approved in Congress, of Bill 164 of 2006 House, 074 of 2007 Senate, by means of which the Nation is associated with the celebration of the thirty (30) years of academic activities of the People's University of Cesar and other provisions are dictated. In addition, it stresses Article 2o, which the government objected to for reasons of unconstitutionality:

" LAW ...

by means of which the Nation is associated with the celebration of the thirty (30) years of academic activities of the People's University of Caesar, and other provisions are dictated.

The Congress of Colombia

DECRETA:

" Article 1o. The Nation is associated with the celebration of the thirty (30) years of legal existence of the University of Caesar and exalts the virtues of its directives, teachers, students and graduates.

Article 2o. The Government may allocate a sum of not less than fifty-five billion pesos ($55,000,000,000) for the general budget of the Nation for the implementation of this law.

According to the current legal regime, the National Government is authorized to join the 30-year anniversary of the People's University of Cesar, through the appropriation of the necessary items to finance the following investment projects:

Central

a) Construction and laboratory endowment for academic experimentation;

b) Adequation and endowment Library;

c) Building and endowment of comprehensive computational platform for improvement of administrative, security and virtual education processes;

d) Construction of four (4) academic blocks;

e) Building Administrative Building;

f) Building Auditorium Theatre;

g) General Services Aea Construction;

h) Construction and Adequation of a Polideportive (Multiple Court);

i) Construction of Parqueers;

j) Physical Infrastructure Maintenance;

k) High-quality teacher training.

Aguachica

a) Construction and endowment of laboratories for academic experimentation;

b) Building Block Laboratories (A and B);

c) Building and endowment of comprehensive computational platform for improvement of administrative, security and virtual education processes;

d) Building Block Block;

e) Construction and Endowment Pilot Plant for the Agro-Industrial Engineering Program;

f) Construction and laboratory endowment for academic experimentation;

g) Bibliographic and Hemeroteca Resource Endowment;

h) Furniture and Enseres, Office Equipment, and Others;

i) Building the sectional enclosure;

j) Construction and Adequation of a Polideportive (Multiple Court);

k) Purchase of Equipment for the Audiovisual Room;

l) Acquisition of 2 buses for the Sectional;

m) High-quality teacher training.

Article 3o. This law governs from its enactment and repeals all provisions that are contrary to it. "

III. LEGISLATIVE PROCESS OF THE PROJECT OBJECTED

The legislative procedure of Bill No. 164 of 2006 House, 074 of 2007 Senate, by means of which the Nation is associated to the celebration of the thirty (30) years of academic activities of the People's University of the Cease and dictate other provisions, presents the following relevant facts:

1. Initiative and procedure in the House of Representatives

-On October 25, 2006, the bill was presented to the General Secretariat of the House of Representatives, by Congressman Ricardo Chajin Florian, who is based on the number 164 of 2006, Camara.

The project was published in the Congress Gazette number 487 of October 26, 2006, Chamber (pages 16-17).

-The presentation and the amendments for the first debate in the Chamber (Fourth Commission), presented by Representative Ricardo Chajin Florian, was published in the Congress Gazette number 525 of November 9 2006, Camera (pages 4-5).

-According to the substantiation report signed by the Secretary General of the Fourth Permanent Constitutional Committee of the House of Representatives_1], the announcement prior to the discussion and vote of the bill was given in session of the 27 March 2007, for the next session (Acta 12)_[2], and the articulated with the proposed amendments was approved in the following session, on 25 April 2007, with a decision-making quorum of 21 of the 27 representatives of the Commission (Acta 13)_[3].

-The presentation and the amendments for the second debate in the Chamber (Plenary), presented by Representative Ricardo Chajin Florian, was published in the Congress Gazette number 231 of June 1, 2007, Camera (pages 29-31).

-According to the substantiation report signed by the Secretary General of the House of Representatives_[4], the announcement prior to the discussion and vote of the bill was given in Plenary Session of July 25, 2007, for the session of 31 July 2007 (Act 61), and the text of the proposed amendments was actually adopted at the plenary session of 31 July 2007, with a decision-making quorum of 149 of the 166 Members of the Plenary Assembly (Minutes 62)_[5].

2. Procedure in the Senate of the Republic

-Issued the bill to the Senate of the Republic, the Presidency of that House distributed the same to the Fourth Permanent Constitutional Commission, based on the number 074 of 2007, Senate_[6].

-The presentation and the amendments for the first debate in the Senate (Fourth Commission), presented by Senator Alvaro Antonio Ashton, was published in the Congress Gazette number 115 of 8 April 2008, Senate (pages 5-8).

-According to the substantiation report signed by the Secretary General of the Senate's Fourth Permanent Constitutional_[7], the announcement prior to the discussion and vote of the bill was given in session on April 15. 2008, for the session of 16 April 2008, and the text of the proposed amendments was actually adopted at the sitting of 16 April 2008, with a decision-making quorum of 12 of the 15 Senators that make up the Commission (Act 8)_[8].

-The presentation for the second debate in the Senate (Plenary), presented by Senator Alvaro Antonio Ashton, was published in the Congress Gazette number 342 of June 10, 2008, Senate (pages 7-9).

-According to the substantiation report signed by the Secretary General of the Senate_[9], the announcement prior to the discussion and vote of the bill was given in Plenary Session of June 17, 2008, for the session of June 18, 2008. 2008 (Act 56), and the article was effectively adopted at the plenary session on 18 July 2008 (Act 57).

3. Accidental Reconciliation Commission

-Because the texts approved in the plenary sessions of both houses were different, a Conciliation Committee of the Conciliation Committee was appointed by Senator Alvaro Antonio Ashton Giraldo and Representative Fernando de la Peña. The reconciliation report was published in the Congressional Gacts numbers 380 of June 18, 2008, Chamber (pages 5-6) and 384 of June 18, 2008, Senate (page 5).

-According to the substantiation report signed by the Secretary General of the Senate_[10], the announcement prior to the discussion and vote of the conciliation report was given in Plenary Session of June 18, 2008, for the June 19 session. 2008 (Act 57), and the reconciled text was effectively adopted at the plenary session on 19 June 2008 (Act 58).

-According to the substantiation report signed by the Secretary-General of the Chamber_[11], the announcement prior to the discussion and vote of the conciliation report was given in Plenary Session of 18 June 2008, for the session of the 19th of June 2008 (Act 119), and the reconciled text was effectively adopted at the plenary session on 19 June 2008 (Act 120).

-Approved the report of conciliation, the project was referred to the President of the Republic for the corresponding sanction, being this, as explained below, partially objected for reasons of unconstitutionality.

IV. OBJECTIVES OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC

The government objected to the unconstitutional article 2o of the bill and consequently returned it to the Congress without the corresponding presidential sanction.

For the Government, the objectionable precept does not know the article 151 of the Constitution, which makes the exercise of legislative activity conditional on the observance of the organic laws_[12], in accordance with Article 7or the Organic Law 819 of 2003, according to which any draft law where public expenditure is ordered must be compatible with the Medium Term Fiscal Framework_[13].

The Executive Branch explains that the regime applicable to the Universities requires that the appropriate amount in the previous life, plus the respective additions, be included in the budget of each fiscal life, in such a way that it is appropriate for a valid period of time. forms the basis for calculating the budget of the following. Therefore, it states, the impact of the objectionable rule is inconsistent with the Medium Term Fiscal Framework provided for in Article 7or Law 819 of 2003, and by that means the article 151 Higher, as it does not amount to only $55 billion as could be believed at first glance. According to his words:

"passage]" [passage] [passage] [passage] [passage] [passage] [passage] [passage] [passage] [passage] [passage] [passage] [passage] [passage] [passage from the text of the bill that we are dealing with] [[passage]] [passage] [passage] [passage from the text They would thus be part of the basis for calculating the contributions of the Nation that is dealt with in Article 86 of Law 30 of 1992. That is, the Nation would be forced to maintain a non-recurring expense, which would grow exponentially. "

Recalls that in the process of the bill the Finance Minister expressed this problem to the Congress, " as the resources required to finance its implementation are not consistent with the Fiscal Framework of the Medium Term, Since, to the extent that they constitute a current expense based on the Law 30 of 1992, they are unsustainable for both the Nation and the respective territorial entity ".

In addition, he warns, the objectionable rule is inconsistent with the Fiscal Framework because it does not point out the source of income for the University's financing, where both the Nation and the department of Cesar must attend. In the Government's view, it would be necessary to clearly establish the source of funding for future vigencies, which is missed in the partially objected project.

V. FROM THE INSISTENCE OF THE CONGRESS ON THE APPROVAL OF THE OBJECT PROJECT

The legislative cells integrated an Accidental Commission for the purpose of analyzing the arguments of the Executive, producing a joint report and presenting it to each of the plenary.

-Foles 21 to 25 of the file have a first report of objections, signed by Congressmen Carmen Cecilia Gutiérrez Mattos (Representative to the Chamber), Fernando de la Peña Marquez (Representative to the Chamber) and Alvaro Antonio Ashton Giraldo (Senator), in which it is proposed to ACOGER the objections raised by the National Government.

-However, to Folios 2 to 7 of the file, another report, signed by the same congressmen, in which it is proposed to NOT ACCEPT the objections formulated by the Government and insists on the approval of the project, warning that "for an inadvertent error was sent the report that did not correspond".

In view of this situation, and bearing in mind that a budget for the Court to decide in depth on the objections is that the legislative chambers have indeed insisted on the approval of the project, the Chamber considered it necessary decree some tests to verify the related complete processing of the same in the Congress of the Republic. The collected probative material shall be given in the considered part of this judgment.

VI. CITIZEN INTERVENTION

In order to guarantee citizen participation, the process was set on the list so that those who wished to intervene could expose their appreciation to this Corporation. The intended term ended in silence.

VII. CONCEPT OF THE NATION ' S ATTORNEY GENERAL.

The Attorney General of the Nation, by way of Concept 4708 of February 11, 2009, considers that the presidential objections made to the article 2o of the draft are unfounded and, consequently, requests the Court to declare the Project exequability.

____________________________________

_{For these purposes, the tax costs of the initiative, the source of additional income generated for the financing of the initiative, should be expressly included in the explanatory statement and in the respective processing papers. that cost (...) "}

As for the processing of objections in Congress, he points out that the report presented by the integrated Commission was approved by the plenary of the Senate of the Republic on 11 December 2008, and by the plenary of the House of Representatives. 15 December of the same year, according to the secretarial certifications in the legislative file.

On the other hand, for the Public Ministry the laws by which the Congress decrees public expenditure are in accordance with the Constitution, provided that they are limited to enabling the government to include them later in the budget law. In this sense, he explains that in matters of public spending the Constitution establishes a division of powers between the Congress and the Government, where the government requires the approval of its projects by the Congress and this, in turn, needs the Government consent to the incorporation of expenditures in the General Budget of the Nation.

He comments that under the principle of the legality of public spending, it is up to the Congress, as a popular representative body, to order the necessary relocations for the fulfillment of the ends of the State. Nevertheless, the laws that create spending only constitute legal titles from which the government can, at a later time and within the framework of its autonomy, incorporate into the general budget the items of the budget. necessary for this purpose (C-343 , 1995). As a result, the Fiscal View continues, laws that authorize public spending do not have the legal aptitude to modify the appropriations law or the National Development Plan, nor can they force the government to carry out the budget transfers. to defray the costs that its execution demands. Thus, he warns that a law that decrees spending is not of an imperative nature, because "is only a sufficient legal title for the eventual inclusion of the corresponding item in the budget law".

On the basis of the foregoing, the Chief of the Public Ministry believes that Article 2o of the draft object does not impose any obligation, since it limits itself to authorizing an expenditure so that the government can include, if it so wishes, the all of which is in line with the Constitution from the perspective of the legality of public expenditure.

On the other hand, as soon as it has to do with the requirement provided for in Article 7or Law 819 of 2003, the Attorney General clarifies that this rule is related to bills involving direct public expenditure or indirect: "Direct, if when they are to be met, they carry over the state resources, and indirect, in the hypothesis of the tax benefits or exemptions". To this extent, it concludes that the requirement laid down in such a standard is not imperative in the case under review, because it is clear that the authorization of the National Government does not carry an order of inexorable compliance.

Finally, the concept does not share the Government's appreciation that the expenses would be disproportionately increased, as the text of the bill indicates that the sum indicated there will be for one time and destined for the works. specifically planned, where what is sought is the incorporation into the budget in the measure of the fiscal possibilities that the National Government values.

VIII. CONSIDERATIONS AND FUNDAMENTALS

1. Competence and scope of control

Pursuant to the provisions of Articles 167 and 241 (numeral 8) of the Constitution, the Court is competent to decide definitively on the constitutionality of the rules objected to by the National Government, in respect of which the Congress insists on its approval.

The control exercised by this Corporation is restricted to examining (i) compliance with the government's term to object to a bill, (ii) the formal processing of insistence in the chambers, and (iii) the material analysis of the objections made_[14], if there is a place.

2. Legal problems and analysis methodology

Before addressing a substantive examination of objections it is necessary to determine whether the budgets for this purpose are met. Accordingly, the Court will begin by analyzing what these requirements are and whether they meet in the subject under control, specifically as regards the opportunity in their formulation and the insistence of the Congress of the Republic.

The Court must pay special attention to the existence and processing of two reports from the integrated legislative commission to assess the objections-the first accepting the government's objections and the second rejecting them-to define whether the case was incurred. in some iron that would allow to reprocess the report, and then determine whether or not Congress insisted on the approval of the project.

Later, only in the event that the Court finds that the annotated requirements were met, will proceed to the material analysis of the case and will study whether or not the objectionable rule does not know the article 151 of the Constitution, in accordance with article 7or Act 819 of 2003.

3. Procedural requirements for the substantive examination of the objections of unconstitutionality formulated by the Government

In order for the Court to address a substantive examination of the objections of unconstitutionality, two questions need to be examined in advance:

(i) if the government objected in a timely manner, and (ii) if Congress effectively dismissed them and insisted on the bill's approval.

3.1 The first requirement is provided for in Article 166 of the Constitution, in accordance with Article 198 of Law 5 of 1992 (Regulation of the Congress). According to these rules, the National Government has six (6) days to return with objections any bill that does not consist of more than twenty articles, ten (10) days when the project is twenty-one to fifty articles, and twenty (20) days when the articles are more than fifty; if not in that time the President is obliged to sanction him and enact the corresponding law_[15].

Article 166 of the Political Charter also states that if, at the time of filing objections, Congress is in recess, the President shall publish them within that period. To this end, it is necessary to take into account the provisions of article 138 of the Constitution, according to which the Congress, in its own right, will meet in ordinary sessions for two periods per year. which will constitute a single legislature: the first session begins on July 20 and ends on December 16, and the second begins on March 16 and concludes on the following June 20_[16].

3.2 The second requirement for the Court to address the substantive study of objections is the insistence of the Congress on the approval of the bill. In this regard, Article 167 of the Charter states that any draft objectionable will return to the legislative chambers for the second debate, and warns that when the government objects to unconstitutionality, "if the cameras insist", the matter will be referred to the Court to decide on its exilibility.

The case law has explained that the insistence of the legislative chambers, which in any case must have a minimum burden of argument [17], constitutes " the starting point for it to be able to decide on the exequability or inexilibility of the object project "_[18]. Moreover, it has considered such a requirement as the "true procedural budget of constitutional control"_[19]. Likewise, he pointed out that to insist on the approval of a project the Chambers cannot exceed the deadline of two legislatures, the first being the one " that is taking place at the time the respective one is returned project "_[20].

In sum, when one of the previously annotated procedural requirements (timely presentation by the government and insistence in Congress ' time) is not met, the Court should refrain from issuing a substantive statement regarding the _[21]insistences.

Enter the Room to review compliance with these requirements.

4. Government objections and opportunity in their formulation

4.1 In the case under review the final text of Bill 164 of 2006 House, 074 of 2007 Senate, " by means of which the Nation is associated to the celebration of the thirty (30) years of academic activities of The People's University of Caesar and other provisions are dictated ", consists of three (3) articles. Therefore, the term to return it with objections was six (6) business days, counted from the day following the receipt of the same by the National Government.

According to the evidence in the file, the project was received at the Presidency of the Republic on 8 July 2008_[22], so that the term for objections was due on 16 July 2008. As the Congress was in recess for that time, during the same period the government had to make the publication of the objections raised.

4.2 The Court notes that the requirements laid down in Article 166 of the Constitution were duly addressed. In fact, the objections to Article 2o of the project were published in the Official Journal 47,052 of 16 July 2008 (pages 39-40), that is, within the six (6) days required in the Political Charter (art. 166), the date on which they were also based in the Congress of the Republic_[23].

Cleared this first issue, to address a background analysis remains to be established if Congress effectively dismissed the Government's objections and insisted on the bill's approval.

5. Processing of objections in the Congress of the Republic

The Court then reviews the procedure given to the objections in the Congress of the Republic. In particular it highlights the existence of two reports, the first accepting the government's qualms and the second rejecting them, each of which was submitted to the plenary.

In this way, it will be possible to analyze how in reality the Congress did not insist on the original approval of the project, since it accepted the questions of the Executive with a new wording of the norm that would not include any specific value (as opposed to the object).

This, even though the plenaries subsequently reprocessed the objections on the basis of an involuntary error ' in the submission of the report, in order to reject them and insist on the approval of the project without modification.

5.1 First objection report. Acceptance of the qualms formulated by the National Government

Received the presidential objections in the Congress of the Republic (July 16, 2008), the Senate and House Directives appointed an Accidental Commission to study them, which after analyzing the arguments of the Executive Branch presented its report to be considered for each of the plenary sessions (September 10, 2008), in the sense of ACOGER the qualms of the Government and rework the wording of the norm in the objectionable aspect, being this duly approved in each Corporation legislation. The procedure was as follows:

5.1.1 House of Representatives.

-Presentation of the Report. Congressmen Carmen Cecilia Gutiérrez Mattos (Representative to the House), Fernando de la Peña Marquez (Representative to the Chamber) and Alvaro Antonio Ashton Giraldo (Senator), presented a first report in which intends to host The objections raised by the National Government and a new wording of the rule_[24]. Says about it:

" (...) Respected Presidents:

Regarding the Presidential Objections presented to Bill 164 of 2006 House, 074 of 2007 Senate, WELCOMES the report of the National Government, based on the following considerations:

(...)

Therefore, we consider, that the objections for reasons of unconstitutionality formulated by the Government to Bill 164 of 2006 House, 074 of 2007 Senate, ARE OF RECIBO within the framework of the previous ones The Commission has decided to leave Article 2o, in its first part as it was approved in the Second Debate by the honourable House of Representatives, and the rest as approved by the honourable Senate of the House. Republic, which will remain so: (...)

Proposition

We ask the Plenary of the Senate of the Republic and the House of Representatives to accept the objections of unconstitutionality formulated by the National Government to Bill 164 of 2006 House, 074 of 2007 Senate, and approve the text welcomed by this Commission, which is thus left: (...)

Article 2o. As of the enactment of this law and pursuant to articles 334, 339, 341 and 345 of the Political Constitution, the National Government is authorized to include within the General Budget of the Nation (a) the budget for which the national co-financing system is required and/or is to be promoted; to be linked to the commemoration of the People's University of Cesar, as well as to the execution of the infrastructure works in the different headquarters of the University, related to the fulfilment of the minimum conditions and standards of quality required by the Ministry of National Education to Colombian Universities, such as:

Central Headquarters

a) Construction and laboratory equipment for academic experimentation;

b) Adequation and endowment Library;

c) Construction and endowment of a comprehensive computational platform for improving administrative, security and virtual education processes;

d) Construction of four (4) academic blocks;

e) Building Administrative Building;

f) Building Auditorium Theatre;

g) General Services Area Construction;

h) Construction and adequacy of a Polyportive (Multiple Court);

i) Construction of parking areas;

j) Physical Infrastructure Maintenance;

k) High-quality teacher training.

Aguachica Headquarters

a) Construction and endowment of laboratories for academic experimentation;

b) Building Block Laboratories (A and B);

c) Construction and endowment of a comprehensive computational platform for improving administrative, security and virtual education processes;

d) Building Block Block;

e) Construction and endowment Pilot Plant for the Agro-Industrial Engineering Program;

f) Construction and laboratory equipment for academic experimentation;

g) Bibliographic and Hemeroteca Resource Endowment;

h) Furniture and Enseres, Office Equipment and Others;

i) Building the sectional enclosure;

j) Construction and adequacy of a Polideportive (Multiple Court);

k) Purchase of equipment for the Audiovisual Room;

l) Acquisition of 2 buses for the sectional;

m) High quality teacher training. (...) ". (Original highlighting, underlined out of text).

-Publication. The report that proposed to accept the objections of the National Government was published in the Congress Gazette number 666 of September 25, 2008, Chamber (pages 9-11)_[25].

-Previous announcement. The prior announcement for the vote on the objections report was made at the session on October 8, 2008, for the following October 14 session, as stated in Act 139, published in the Congress Gazette number 798 of 14 November 2008 (pages 34 and 76)_[26], as follows:

" On the instructions of the President, with the authorization of the Secretary General, in accordance with the Legislative Act 01 of 2003 and indicated by the Constitutional Court, the following projects are announced for the Plenary Session of the October 14, 2008, or for the next plenary session at which bills or legislative acts are discussed:

(...)

Bill 164 of 2006 House, 074 of 2007 Senate, by means of which the Nation is associated with the celebration of the thirty (30) years of academic activities of the People's University of Cesar and other provisions are dictated. Published in the Congress Gazette number 666 of 2008.

(...)

The session is closed and is called for Tuesday at 2:30 p.m. m.

The session rose at 11:57 p.m. m. ".

-Voting and approval of the report in the Chamber of the House. The vote and approval of the objections report was effectively conducted at the session on October 14, 2008, as stated in Act 140, published in the Congress Gazette number 866 of November 26, 2008. 2008 (page 29)_[27], which highlights the following:

" Report of Objections to Bill No. 164 of 2006 House, 074 of 2007 Senate, by means of which the Nation is associated with the celebration of the thirty (30) years of academic activities of the People's University of the Cease and other provisions are dictated. The report is as follows:

Proposition: We ask the Senate of the Republic and the House of Representatives to adopt the objections of unconstitutionality, accepting them from the National Government (sic). (...), and to approve the text accepted by this Commission, which will remain so: (...) ". (Highlighted out of text).

-Quorum deliberatory and decision-making in Plenary. The deliberative and decision-making quorum for the approval of the project was 151 of the 166 members that make up the Plenum of that Corporation, as stated in Act 140, published in the Congress Gazette number 866 of November 26, 2008 (pages 1-2)_[28]. The vote was made in accordance with Article 129 of the Congress ' Rules of Procedure.

5.1.2 Republic Senate.

-Publication. The report that proposed to accept the objections of the National Government was published in the Congress Gazette number 660 of September 23, 2008, Senate_[29] (pages 7-9).

-Previous announcement. The prior announcement for the vote on the objection report was made at the session on October 14, 2008, for the following day's session, as stated in Act 16, published in the Congress Gazette of 23 January 2009 (pages 67 and 89), as well_[30]:

" On the instructions of the Presidency and in accordance with Legislative Act No. 01 of 2003, the Secretariat announces the projects to be discussed and approved for the next session:

(...)

Bill number 074 of 2007 Senate, 164 of 2006 Chamber, by means of which the Nation is associated to the celebration of the thirty (30) years of academic activities of the People's University of Caesar and other provisions.

(...)

Being 11:00 p. Mr President, the Presidency is meeting and convening for the day on Tuesday 15 October 2008 (sic) at 2:00 p. m. ".

-Voting and approval of the report in Plenary. The vote and approval of the objections report was actually conducted at the session on October 15, 2008, as stated in Act 17, published in the Congress Gazette number 9 of January 23, 2009 (pages 7, 11, 21, and 22), which highlights the following_[31]:

" The words of the honorable Senator Alvaro Antonio Asthhon Giraldo.

(...)

That bill, was discussed and approved in its four debates, the National Government, through the President presented some objections, the Commission appointed by the Bureau welcomed the objections established by the Presidency, in such a way, Mr President, that colleagues to approve the objections accepted by this Commission,relation to the concerns raised by the President of the Republic in this draft. of law "_[32]. (Highlighted out of text).

-Quorum deliberatory and decision-making in Senate. The deliberative and decision-making quorum for the approval of the project was 88 of the 102 Senators that make up the Plenum of that Corporation, as stated in Act 17, published in the Congress Gazette January 23, 2009 (pages 1-2) [33]. The vote was made in accordance with Article 129 of the Congress ' Rules of Procedure.

5.1.3 The Court notes that, in votes on 14 and 15 October 2008, the House and Senate plenary members approved the above-mentioned objections report, in the sense of integrally accepting the objections raised by the National Government and rework the text of the article in the questioned aspect. In this way, the specific sum of $55 billion was excluded, against which the Executive Branch had expressed its rejection of the incompatibility with the medium-term fiscal framework in the face of the duty to include this item in the fiscal vigencies. next.

passage omitted] The new rule was limited to authorizing the government to include appropriations in the general budget of the nation, based on the rules that guide the formulation, approval and execution of the budget. Government an imperative mandate for its inclusion within it. This means that the objections raised have been accepted.

5.2 Second objection report. Rejection and insistence on project approval

Despite the foregoing, on December 10, 2008, the same members of the Accidental Commission formed to examine the objections, sent the Senate and the House of Representatives a second report, pointing out that "for an inadvertent error was sent the report that did not correspond"_[34]. In the new document, the congressmen DO NOT ACOGEN the objections of unconstitutionality of the Executive and propose to declare them unfounded in the following terms_[35]:

" (...) Respected Presidents:

In relation to the presidential objections presented to Bill 164 of 2006 House, 074 of 2007 Senate, WE DO NOT WELCOME the report of the National Government, based on the following considerations.

...] For the above considerations, we ask the plenary of the honorable Senate of the Republic and the honourable House of Representatives to declare unfounded the objections presented by the President of the Republic to the Law number 164 of 2006 Chamber, 074 of 2007 Senate, by means of which the Nation is associated with the celebration of the thirty (30) years of academic activities of the People's University of Caesar and other provisions are dictated. (...) ". (Original highlighting).

This second report of objections was also dealt with in the Congress of the Republic, as follows:

-In the House of Representatives the report was published in the Congress Gazette number 928 of December 10, 2008 (page 50)_[36]; the pre-vote announcement was made in session of the December 10, 2008_[37]; and the effective vote was fulfilled in the announced plenary, on December 15, 2008_[38], with the majorities required for that purpose_[39].

It should be noted that in the Order of the Day of December 15, 2008, the General Secretariat of the House scheduled the vote on the objections report, citing the " correction of procedural defects (according to the Article 2or, numeral 2 of the 5th Act of 1992 or the Congress ' Rules of Procedure) "_[40]. Likewise, work on the record is signed by the General Secretariat of the Chamber of the Court of Justice for the Court Constitutional_[41].

-In the Senate of the Republic, the report was published in the Congress Gazette number 925 of December 10, 2008 (pages 6-8)_[42]; the pre-vote announcement was made in session on the same day_[43]; and the effective vote was fulfilled in the announced plenary, on December 11, 2008_[44]. A record signed by the Secretary General of the Senate, according to which the approval of the report of objections in the session of December 11, 2008, was completed, was also carried the record. subsable "_[45].

At this point the Chamber warns that the congressmen, in particular the members of the Accidental Commission integrated to analyze the government's objections, never offered any specific and specific explanations on the reasons for dealing with the new the objections report.

Omission that took place in both the second report referral and during the Senate and Chamber plenary debates.

5.3 The Congress of the Republic accepted the Government's objections, with no formal and no formal and no formal and no new report being configured to deal with a new report

5.3.1 According to the review of the legislative procedure and the documentation that rests on the file, the Court considers that the Congress of the Republic actually accepted the objections of unconstitutionality raised by the government. This was how it approved a new wording of the article 2o of the project where no specific amount was included in the authorization of the expenditure, since initially the norm contemplated the sum of $55 billion, in front of which the Executive had expressed its rejection of the incompatibility with the medium-term fiscal framework, in the face of the duty to include such a departure in the following fiscal vigencies.

In effect, the legislative process of the first report of objections was made in accordance with the Constitution, particularly as provided for in Articles 160 and 167 of the Charter, the latter of which notes that "the bill being fully or partially objected to by the Government will return to the Chambers for second debate". Compliance with the following requirements is highlighted:

i) Publication of the objections report in the respective Gacetas Congress, both Senate and House;

ii) Prior to the discussion and vote in each of the plenary sessions;

iii) Discussion and approval of the report in previously announced sessions for Senate and House of Representatives;

iv) Compliance with the quorum and majorities for the approval of the report in each legislative cell;

v) The processing of objections has been completed within the first legislature, in line with the requirements of Article 162 of the Political Charter and the case law on this issue. Corporation_[46].

In these circumstances, the Court does not notice any error or vice in the processing of the first report of objections. On the contrary, he finds that he himself developed fully in accordance with the Constitution and the Congress ' Rules of Procedure (Law 5th of 1992, Articles 196 et seq.).

5.3.2 Now, if the first report of objections was dealt with in due form until the vote of the legislative process in each plenary, as in fact occurred, in the absence of a vice in the procedure, the Congress could not invoke, without more, a sort of "involuntary error" in the report's referral, to roll back the objections and bring forward the second debate in both the Senate and the House of Representatives.

For the Court, it is clear that Article 2or Act 5 of 1992 enshrines the principle of formal correction of procedures in the interpretation of the Congress ' regulation. Says the rule:

" Article 2o. Principles of interpretation of the regulation. In the interpretation and application of the rules of this Regulation, the following principles shall be taken into account:

(...) 2. Formal correction of procedures. It aims to correct the procedural defects that are correct, in the understanding that this guarantees not only the constitutionality of the process of formation of laws, but also the rights of the majority and the minorities and the orderly advance of the discussions and votes. " (Highlighted out of text).

However, as the article itself states, and as is only logical, such a forecast only has a place when a procedural vice is effectively being faced, that is, in the face of " a constitutional infringement that can affect the validity of a law "_[47], but it is not applicable when the process has been developed without any irregularities and the plenaries have discussed and voted on a project.

In the Court's view, the principle of formal correction should be conceived as a legitimate tool that allows Congress, through its own acquiescence, to overcome some leeks or deficiencies in the passage of a law (when If they have actually existed), provided that they do not alter the essential elements of the same. But the jurisprudence of this Corporation has explained that while there is a possibility that some irregularities present in a vote may be validated by the Congress_[48], it is also true that a new vote cannot be serve as an excuse to leave the validly adopted decisions without effect, because in such events the new vote, "far from correcting the vice, is actually its materialization".

In this regard, for example, in Judgment C-816 , 2004, the Court specified the following:

" 124. In spite of the foregoing, the Court considers that in the process of the legislative act accused the vice-mark was not remedied by the vote held on November 6, 2003, in which the report obtained the majority constitutionally I would like to make it clear that this new vote, far from correcting the vice, is in fact its materialization. The new vote is in fact the result of the abolition of the legal and practical consequences of the vote taken on 5 November 2003, which had to be respected, with all its effects, by the Bureau of the European Parliament. House of Representatives and by that Corporation. The new vote involved a sort of cancellation or repetition of the vote on the previous day, thereby consuming the vice of depriving or suppressing the effects of the decision taken by the Plenary of the House on 5 November 2003. which, as has already been explained, implied the collapse of the project. Therefore, this new vote cannot be assimilated to a validation but to the concreteness and consummation of the vice analyzed.

125. On the other hand, the Congressional Regulation does not authorize that if a vote has been taken on a report, such a vote may be repeated at a later date, so the House lacked competence to advance the report. new vote. On countless occasions, this Court has pointed out that the subsequent votes of a plenary do not validate defects that have occurred prior to the passage of a law, when the nature of the previous irregularity deprives the plenary the possibility of re-examining the case. " (Highlighted out of text).

In this order of ideas, the principle of formal correction of procedures cannot lead to the extreme of allowing the new opening and voting of a project dealt with and completed in due form, which is explained at least for three reasons: (i) First, because in such circumstances the Legislative Chambers lack competence to re-examine a case; (ii) second, because this would imply disknowledge of the decisions taken by the parliamentary majorities in a a specific historical moment, putting at serious risk the validity of the democratic principle; and Finally, (iii) because this affects another principle contemplated in the Congress ' regulation, which is the one of speed in the legislative procedures_[49].

5.3.3 In the case under review, in addition to the fact that there was no vice in the legislative process of the objections (as demonstrated in the examination of the process of approval of the objections), it is important to note that during the debate in the Plenary Senate and House was always clear on the content of the first-report of objections, to such an extent that it was expressly requested to approve and amend the article 2 of the draft, to accommodate the objections formulated by the National Government.

El Comercio] As well, in the House of Representatives, the Secretary General read the content of the proposal, in the sense of " adopting the objections of unconstitutionality, accepting them from the government's proposals. National "_[50]. In the Senate of the Republic, in turn, the report's own rapporteur, Dr Alvaro Antonio Ashton Giraldo, held the following: " [L] to Mesa welcomed the objections established by the Presidency, in such a way as President I call on colleagues to approve the objections accepted by this Commission, in relation to the concerns raised by the President of the Republic in that bill "_[51].

Additionally, you also cannot lose sight of the fact that during the process of the second objection report in both Chamber_[52] and Senate_[53], the "involuntary error" never specified. reason for the reopening of the vote and the debate, which confirms the absence of a subsable vice in the legislative procedure.

5.3.4 The following conclusions can be drawn from the above regarding the processing of presidential objections to Bill 164 of 2006 House, 074 of 2007 Senate, " by means of which the Nation is associated with the Celebration of the thirty (30) years of academic activities of the People's University of Cesar and other provisions are dictated ", whose article 2o was questioned by the National Government for reasons of unconstitutionality:

i) The processing of the first report of objections was made in due form, so that the objections formulated by the National Government were fully accepted.

(ii) In the absence of a procedural vice of legislative procedure in the process of the first report of objections, the Congress lacked the competence to leave the decision of the plenary without effect, even more so when its content was always clear and scope.

iii) The principle of formal correction of the legislative procedure could not lead to a further opening of the debate and vote on the report of objections, so that the second report does not have legal effectiveness.

(iv) Consequently, the Congress of the Republic did not actually insist on the original approval of Article 2o of Bill 164 of 2006 House, 074 of 2007 Senate, since it accepted the qualms formulated by the National Government and with base on them approved a new wording of the standard.

6. Court's inhibition to give a background to the lack of congressional insistence on the bill's approval

As explained in this providence (legal basis 3), in order for the Court to be able to deal with a substantive examination, two requirements must be met: (i) the Government has formulated the objections of unconstitutionality in a timely manner. and (ii) that the Congress has effectively dismissed them and insisted on the approval of the bill.

El Nacional] However, as the Congress accepted the questions raised by the National Government on this occasion and redrafted the wording of the article in the objectionable aspect, the second requirement for the Court to be able to make a substantive decision is not fulfilled. In this respect the case law of this Corporation has specified the following:

[passage] " Through the insistence Congress then expresses its disagreement regarding the objections raised by the President of the Republic to a bill, resulting in the Court taking over the jurisdiction to hear the matter always and in the case of reproaches for reasons of unconstitutionality. Thus, if the Congress does not insist, but rather, it manifests the objections raised by the executive branch, there is no place for the Constitutional Court to intervene. The above means, that if it does not exist discrepancy between the government and the Congress because the latter has manifested itself to the reproaches of the executive branch and, therefore, has disappeared the foundation of the jurisdiction of the Court "_[54]. (Highlighted out of text).

Consequently, in accordance with the case-law of the case_[55], as there has been no real controversy between the Congress and the Government, the Court's substantive intervention is meaningless. Constitutional, so it should be inhibited to decide on the exequability or inexilibility of the article 2o of the project and " to reserve the Corporation for the case of possible lawsuits filed by the citizens against the relevant rules once the law is sanctioned and enacted "_[56]. Likewise, it must order the referral of the file to the Congress of the Republic in order to continue the legislative process of rigor and its subsequent submission to the President of the Republic for the effect of the corresponding sanction.

IX. DECISION

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

RESOLVES:

First. Inhibit to rule on the exequability or inexilibility of presidential objections to Article 2o of Bill 164 of 2006 House, 074 of 2007 Senate, " by means of which the Nation is associated with the celebration of the thirty (30) years of academic activities of the People's University of Cesar and other provisions are dictated ".

Second. Remitase the file to the Congress of the Republic, including the present providence, to continue the legislative process of rigor.

Notify, contact, publish, insert in the Constitutional Court Gazette and file the file.

Nilson Pinilla Pinilla, President; Maria Victoria Calle Correa, Mauricio González Cuervo, Juan Carlos Henao Pérez, Gabriel Eduardo Mendoza Martelo, Jorge Ivan Palacio Palacio, Jorge Ignacio Pretelt Chaljub, Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto, Luis Ernesto Vargas Silva, Magistrates; Martha Victoria Sachica Méndez, General Secretariat.

* * *

1 Main Notebook, folio 201.

2 Act 012 of March 27, 2007, published in the Congress Gazette number 130 of April 20, 2007.

3 Act 013 of April 25, 2007, published in the Congress Gazette number 256 of June 7, 2007.

4 Main Notebook, folio 121.

5 Minutes 062 of April 31, 2007, published in the Congress Gazette number 435 of September 7, 2007.

6 Main Notebook, folios 119-120.

7 Main Notebook, folio 86.

8 Act 8 of April 16, 2008, published in the Congress Gazette number 856 of November 24, 2008.

9 Main Notebook, folio 59.

10 Main Notebook, folio 32.

11 Main Notebook, folio 31.

12 "Item 151. The Congress shall issue organic laws to which the exercise of legislative activity shall be subject. The regulations of the Congress and of each of the Chambers, the rules on the preparation, approval and implementation of the income and law of appropriations and the general development plan, and those relating to the the allocation of regulatory powers to territorial entities. The organic laws will require, for approval, an absolute majority of the votes of members of one Chamber and one Chamber. "

13 " Item 7or. Analysis of the tax impact of the rules. At all times, the tax impact of any bill, ordinance, or agreement, which mandates or grants tax benefits, must be made explicit and must be compatible with the Medium Term Fiscal Framework.

14 Constitutional Court, Judgment C-849 of 2005, C-874 of 2005 and C-1183 of 2008, among others.

15 On this point, the case law has explained that the terms provided there relate to working and complete days, whose computation starts from the day following the one in which the project was received for the sanction of rigor. Cfr., Constitutional Court, Sentences C-268 of 1995, C-380 of 1995, C-292 of 1996, C-510 of 1996, C-028 of 1997, C-063 of 2002 and C-068 of 2004, C-433 of 2004, C-856 of 2006, C-1040 of 2007, C-315 of 2008 and C-616 2008, among many others.

16 The rule clarifies that the Congress will also meet in extraordinary sessions at the Government's notice and for as long as it points out, in which case it will only be able to deal with the matters that the Government submits to its consideration, without damage to the political control function of his own, which he can exercise at all times. 17 Constitutional Court, Sentences C-559 of 2002 and C-1146 of 2003, among others.

18 Constitutional Court, Statement C-883 of 2007. See also 2008 C-616 and 731 Sentences.

19 Idem. See also C-1183 Statement 2008.

20 Cfr., Constitutional Court, Sentences C-069 of 2004, C-433 of 2004, C-985 of 1996 and C-482 of 2008.

21 Constitutional Court, Sentences C-036 of 1998, C-070 of 2004, C-500 of 2005, C-883 of 2007 and C-1183 of 2008, among others.

22 Main Notebook, folio 26; Notebook 2, Folios 2, and ss.

23 Main Notebook, Folios 16-19.

24 Main Notebook, Foles 21 to 25.

25 Notebook 4.

26 Notebook 4.

27 Notebook 4.

28 Notebook 4.

29 Notebook 3.

30 Notebook 6.

31 Notebook 6.

32 Page 11.

33 Notebook 6.

34 Main Notebook, folio 2.

35 Main Notebook, Foles 3 to 7.

36 Notebook 4.

37 Notebook 5. The prior announcement for the vote on the objection report was made at the session on December 10, 2008, as stated in Acta 157 of that date, published in 1a Congress Gazette number 36 of 16 February 2009, pp. 37 and 44.

38 Notebook 7. The vote and approval of the objection report was effectively conducted at the session on December 15, 2008, as stated in Act 158, published in the Congress Gazette number 103 of March 6, 2009, p. 28.39 E1 deliberative and decision-making quorum for the approval of the project was 164 of the members that make up the Plenary of that Corporation, as stated in Act 158, published in the Congress Gazette 103 of 6 March 2009, pp. l-3.

40 Notebook 4, folio 10.

41 Notebook 4, folio 4. The constancy was issued " at nineteen (19) days of December of two thousand eight (2008), at the request of the Constitutional Court, according to the request made by Office number OPC-77/09 of February 17, 2009, with radication 292 of the same date ".

42 Notebook 3.

43 Notebook 6. In accordance with the certification issued by the Secretary General of the Senate, the prior announcement for the vote on the objection report was made at the session of December 10, 2008, as stated in the Act 34 of that date, I_aj"> "not yet published for administrative reasons".

44 Cuadernos 3 y 8. In accordance with the certification issued by the Secretary-General of the Senate, the vote and approval of the objection was effectively carried out at the session of 11 December 2008, as stated in the Minutes 35, " without publishing ". The publication was made at the Congress Gazette number 208 of April 15, 2009 (Notebook 8).

45 Notebook 3, Folios 1 and 2.

46 Constitutional Court, Sentences C-069 of 2004, C-433 of 2004, C-985 of 2006 and C-482 of 2008 among others.

47 Paloma Biglino Campos, The vices in the legislative procedure. Madrid, Center for Constitutional Studies, 1991. p. 16.

48 Cfr., Constitutional Court, Sentences C-816 of 2004 and C-1053 of 2005.

49 " Article 2or. Principles of interpretation of the regulation. In the interpretation and application of the rules of this Regulation, the following principles shall be taken into account: 1. With the formal correction of the procedures, the rules of the regulation must serve to effectively promote the development of the tasks of every order of the Congress ".

50 Cfr., Notebook 4, Congress Gazette number 866 of November 26, 2008, page 29.

Congress Gazette number 9 of January 23, 2009, page 11.

52 Notebook 7, Act 35 of the December 11, 2008 session, published in the Congress Gazette number 208 of April 15, 2009, pp. 4, 12, 18-20.

53 Notebook 8, Act 158 of the session of December 15, 2008, published in the Congress Gazette number 103 of March 6, 2009, p. 28.

54 Constitutional Court, Statement C-070 , 2004. In the same sense, see, among others, the C-036 , 2005, C-500 , 2007, , and 2007 C-1183 Sentences.

55 Cfr., Constitutional Court, Statements C-923 of 2000, C-070 of 2004, and C-883 of 2007.

56 Cfr., Constitutional Court, Statements C-923 , 2000, C-070 , 2004.