In consideration, the objection report read, opens its discussion, announced that it will be closed, is closed is the House approved?

Secretary General Dr. Jesus Alfonso Rodriguez C.

Approved the objections report.

6.1.4.4. Announcement and vote of the report on objections in the Plenary of the Senate of the Republic.

The text of presidential objections for reasons of unconstitutionality are published in the Congress Gazette number 431 on Wednesday, July 23, 2008.

In turn, the text of the Accidental Commission Report that studied presidential objections is published in the Congress Gazette number 882 on Wednesday, December 3, 2008.

As for the announcement and vote in the Senate Plenary, the Secretary-General in his report on "substantiation of objections report" certified the following:

" In plenary session of the honorable Senate of the Republic of the Republic of Tuesday [9] December of the year two thousand eight (2008), the report signed by the honorable senators Jorge Hernando Pedraza, Carlos, was considered and approved. Julio González, Oscar Suarez Mira, members of the Accidental Commission to report on the objections of unconstitutionality presented by the Executive to Bill 087 of 2008 Senate, 012 of 2006 " for which the Law 769 of 2002 (National Transit Code) is reformed and other provisions are dictated", according to the Minutes of the Plenary Session number 34, previous announcement in Plenary Session of the 8 December 2008, as set out in Minutes No 33. The report was published in the Congressional Gazette number 882 of 2008. "

As for the vote on the presidential objections report, the Secretary General of the Senate certifies that "is pending publication for administrative reasons".

6.1.4.5. Order number 090 in Sala Plena on 24 February 2009.

As explained, as far as the House of Representatives is concerned, as indicated, the Secretary-General certified that the announcement prior to the vote in Plenary was in the Minutes number 156 of December 9, 2008, but that the same was "in the state of elaboration in the Office of the Office of the Rapporteur". In turn, in terms of the vote, the text of the Minutes of the Plenary Session number 157 of December 10, 2008, was provided in magnetic medium, without the Gazette for how much "has not been referred by the National Printing Company to this Corporation".

For his part, as for the Senate of the Republic, his Secretary General certified that during the plenary session on Tuesday (9) December of the year two thousand eight (2008), was considered and approved the report of the respective Commission, in The previous announcement was presented at the Plenary Session of 8 December 2008, as stated in the Minutes No. 33. However, it does not provide the respective Gacetas, as the same "is pending publication for administrative reasons".

Given the previous evidentiary deficiencies, the Plena Chamber of the Constitutional Court, by Order of 24 February 2009, decided as follows:

" First. Refrain from deciding, as long as the required constitutional and legal budgets are not met.

Second. Order that the present order be brought to the attention of the Presidents of the Senate of the Republic and the House of Representatives, in order for the corresponding Acts and Congress Gacetas to be sent to the Constitutional Court necessary to be able to determine, on the basis of the relevant evidence, whether for the approval of the presidential objections report the established procedure was complied with.

Third. Urge the Secretaries-General of the Senate of the Republic and the House of Representatives to accept all the documents required and to have them sent to this Corporation, within three (3) days of the publication of the minutes in the Congress ' Gacetas.

Fourth. Once the Substantive Magistrate verifies that the previous evidence has been adequately provided, the processing of the presidential objections will continue in the draft of Law No. 012 of 2006 Chamber, 087 of 2007 Senate, by which is reformed by Law 769 of 2002 (National Transit Code) and other provisions are dictated ".

6.2. Examination of constitutionality regarding the evidence provided by the Congress of the Republic, in compliance with Auto number 090 of 2009.

6.2.1. House of Representatives.

By writing on March 17, 2009 to the General Secretariat of the Court, the Secretary-General of the House of Representatives provided the text of the Congress Gazette number 36 of 2009, in the which is published in the Plenary Act number 157 of December 10, 2008, in which the Presidential Objections Report of Bill 012 of 2006 House, 087 of 2007 Senate is approved.

Later, in document filed on March 24, 2009, the same official provided the text of the Congress Gazette number 102 of 2009, in which the 156th Plenary Act is published. December 9, 2009, content of the announcement for voting, in the following terms:

" Undersecretary, Dr. Flor Marina Daza. Reports:

The following projects are announced for the plenary session of tomorrow, December 10, or for the next plenary session in which the bill or legislative acts will be debated, according to the Legislative Act No. 1 of July 3. 2003:

Bill 012 of 2006 House, 087 of 2007 Senate, for which the 2002 Law 769 (National Transit Code) is reformed.

As for the quorum of the Plenary Session of December 10, 2009, as stated in the text of the Congress Gazette number 36 of February 16, 2009, pp. 2 and 3, 142 Representatives attended.

Similarly, as to the constitutional requirement of the previous announcement, the Court warns that it was fulfilled as soon as it took place on December 9, 2008, having been the "next session", that of the day next (December 10, 2008), at which time the presidential objections report was effectively approved.

In this order of ideas, the Court considers that no vice was presented in connection with the approval of the presidential objections report in the House of Representatives.

6.2.2. Senate of the Republic.

By writing on April 3, 2009, the Secretary General of the Senate of the Republic, provided the text of the Congress Gazette number 149 of 2009, published on March 19, 2009, in which The text of the 33rd Plenary Act of 9, 2008,contained in the text of the discussion and approval of the report of presidential objections.

As for the quorum, from the reading of the Congress Gazette number 149 of March 19, 2009, pp. 2 and 3, attended the aforementioned Plenary Session, a total of 97 Senators.

Similarly, by document dated April 15, 2009, the quoted official provided the text of the Congress Gazette number 148 of 19 of Thursday, March 19, 2009, content of the Minutes of Session Plenary number 32 of December 3, 2008, in which the voting announcement "for the next session" is included.

As regards compliance with the constitutional requirement of the previous announcement, the Court finds that it was fulfilled as soon as the project was announced during the session of December 3, 2008 to be voted. session", which took place on December 9 of the same year.

The Court then warns that, like what happened in the House of Representatives, the Senate also did not show any procedural vice regarding the approval of the presidential objections report.

VII. MATERIAL EXAMINATION OF PRESIDENTIAL OBJECTIONS.

A. FIRST PRESIDENTIAL OBJECTION

1. Presidential objection by unconstitutionality of paragraph 3 of Article 3o.

It is argued that paragraph 3 of Article 3o of the Bill, stating that "The financial surpluses of the Integrated Information System of Multas and Sanctions for Transit Infractions, will be destined to Country tourist signage by the system administrator ", violates the principles of consistency and identity, in the terms of the article 157 Superior.

In this regard, it is clarified that the objectionable rule was included in the presentation for the second debate in the Senate of the Republic, "without having had any prior discussion in any of the Permanent Sex Commissions of each of the Cameras, not in the House Plenary. "

Similarly, it is argued that the provision does not know the article 151 Superior, to the extent that it violates article 47 of Law 179 of 1994, compiled in the Organic Statute of the Budget (Decree 111 of 1996), in its article 101, which stipulates that " belong to the Nation the returns obtained by the National Single Account System, as well as from the public or private bodies with the resources of the Nation with the exception of those who obtain the social".

passage omitted] (La Nacion, in the end) -- In this way, the resources from the collection of fines and traffic penalties are a current income, that is, public money owned by the nation, which the legislator gave to the territorial entities. In this measure, he explains that a particular, in particular the Colombian Federation of Municipalities, who invests the financial surpluses of such resources in a certain end, would go against the article 101 of Decree 111 of 1996, because "such resources are the property of the Nation, therefore, their surpluses must enter the National Treasury for their disposal".

In conclusion, it notes that "paragraph 3 of Article 3o of the Bill violates article 101 of Decree 111 of 1996, Organic Statute of the Budget, and to that extent, contravenes the provisions of Article 151 of the Political Charter, stating that the financial resources of the SIMIT must be destined for tourist signs and therefore must not be returned to the Treasury".

Posture assumed by the Congress of the Republic.

As far as the alleged violation of the principles of consistency and identity is concerned, the congressmen are opposed by pointing out the following:

" This objection is not related to the reality, because in the transcript of the debate of the Committee VI of the Senate, of the 4th day of June of the current year, it appears with vertical clarity, in the last intervention of the session carried out by the Senator Oscar Suarez Mira, who requested the modification of article 5or Law 769, introducing a new paragraph with the text " The financial surpluses of the Integrated Information System of Multas and Sanctions for Transit Infraactions, will be destined for tourist signs of the country by the system administrator entity. As it appears in the presentation for the second debate, as in paragraph 3 of Article 5 on the topic of signage ".

On the contrary, in relation to the violation of Article 151 Superior, the congressmen recognize that it is in fact contravening it, " because it violates article 46 of Law 179 of 1994 and article 101 of Decree 111 of 1996; as well as we have the resources from the collection The fines for traffic penalties constitute a current income, and consequently these monies of public and property nature of the Nation that the legislator gave to the territorial entities and consequently these surpluses do not can be invested by a different entity than the Nation".

So things, "in the above terms, we welcome the objection presented by the Executive".

3. Concept of Fiscal View.

The Fiscal View did not rule in relation to the presidential objection filed against paragraph 3 of Article 3o of the Bill. In fact, at the time of the respective concept, (number 4707) the Attorney General's Office states that it will deal with the following:

" By trade dated January 23, 2009, the President of the Senate of the Republic referred to the Attorney General of the Nation a copy of the Draft Law of the Reference, once the procedure of insistence of approval by the two Chambers was dispensed. Legislative to the objections unconstitutionality made by the President of the Republic to paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 4, numeral 4 and paragraph 2 of Article 5, paragraph 2 of Article 8, Article 11, paragraph 1 or Article 13, Article 17, paragraph 2 of Article 24, and Article 27, all of Bill 87 of 2007 Senate, 12 of 2006, Chamber. This copy was filed in the Office of Correspondence of the Attorney General's Office on 3 February 2009.

4. Solution to the concrete case by the Constitutional Court.

4.1. Text of the objected rule.

Paragraph 3o of Article 3o of the Bill provides the following:

"The financial surpluses of the Integrated Information System of Multas and Sanctions for Transit Infraactions, will be destined for tourist signage of the country by the system administrator".

4.2. Legal problem raised.

The President of the Republic objected to the unconstitutional paragraph 3 of Article 3 of the Bill, raising the following charges of unconstitutionality:

First charge: violation of the principles of consistency and identity, in the terms of the article 157 Superior, as soon as the standard objectionable would have been included in the paper for second debate in the Senate of the Republic, "without having had any prior discussion in any of the Permanent Sex Commissions of each of the Chambers, nor in the Plenary of the House of Representatives."

Second charge: violation of article 151 Superior, to the extent that the expression does not know the content of article 47 of Act 179 of 1994, compiled in the Organic Statute of the Budget (Decree 111 of 1996), in its article 101, which stipulates that " belong to the Nation the returns obtained by the National Single Account System, as well as from the public or private bodies with the resources of the Nation with the exception of those who obtain the social".

El Salvador] The Congress of the Republic rejected the first presidential objection, concerning the formal procedure of the bill, but welcomed the second, that is, that of material content. In fact, the text of the report on objections reads as follows:

" Synthesis.

In short, on the objections raised by the executive, the accidental committees of Senate and House, we propose:

1. As for the First Objection:

We welcome the objection presented by the Executive.

4.3. Concrete case solution.

In the specific case, the Court considers that an inhibitory ruling is appropriate for the current lack of object. Indeed, this Corporation has considered that "the insistence of the Chambers" is a procedural budget, in order for the Court to have jurisdiction in the analysis of the exequability of the object project. If that fault, in whole or in part, is to be understood as being fully or partially archived, according to Article 200 of Law 3ª of 1992_[10].

Similarly, in a similar case, referring to the examination of presidential objections to the 1998 Senate Bill No. 04 and 114 House of Representatives, "for which the National Government has awarded a building with destination to the headquarters the Korean war veterans and the military conflict with Peru and other provisions are dictated", the Court in Judgment C- 923 of 2000 considered the following:

" First of all, it is necessary to take into account that the Congress of the Republic welcomed the presidential objections with respect to Articles 8 and 9 of the draft in reference, and decided to adjust the wording of the Articles 6, 7 and 11 "to conform to the Charter". Thus, the legislature only expressed its disagreement with regard to the objections raised against Articles 2, 3, 4 and 10 of the draft. Consequently, the constitutionality study by this Corporation should only be restricted to the aforementioned canyons. (Added grills and underscores).

Thus, given that the Congress of the Republic finally welcomed the presidential objections, although not for reasons of form but of substance, the controversy aroused between both Ramas of the Public Power has disappeared, and therefore, it proceeds in This case is an inhibitory failure due to the current lack of object.

fact, it was noted that the Congress considered that the constitutional principles of the consequences and identity of the matter had not been violated when the paragraph 3 of Article 3 of the Bill was approved, but admitted that the same He did not know what was established in the Organic Statute of the Budget, which was why, finally, he welcomed the presidential objection. So, to date, we do not have one of the constitutional budgets necessary for the Court to adopt a fundamental judgment, due to the current lack of object.

Thus, the Court will declare itself inhibited to propose a substantive ruling in relation to paragraph 3 of Article 3o of Bill No. 012 of 2006 Chamber, 087 of 2007 Senate, " href="ley_0769_2002.html#1"> 769 2002 (National Transit Code) and other provisions are dictated", for current lack of object.

B. SECOND PRESIDENTIAL OBJECTION.

1. Objection to the unconstitutionality and inconvenience of paragraph 4 and paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 4, as well as Article 6 (2) or Article 6 (2).

According to the President of the Republic, paragraph 4 (4) and paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 4 (2), as well as Article 6 (2) or Article 6 (2) of the Draft Law, have serious inconsistencies in the process of renewal of the the driving license, "that make it impossible to apply it by creating legal uncertainty for the recipient of the rule".

In this regard, it points out that paragraph 2 of Article 4 of the Bill determines that ' Who is currently the holder of a driving licence, which does not comply with the technical conditions laid down in this Article and in the regulations which the Ministry of Transport will issue for this purpose, replace it in a term of forty-eight (48) months from the enactment of this law, in accordance with the provisions of article 15 of Law 1005 of 2006. Article 4 (4) states that ' Driving licenses, which do not have these security elements, must be renewed according to the schedule issued by the Ministry of Transport in this respect, in a period of 4 years, counted from the implementation of the National Single Transit Registry, RUNT".

In this respect, it explains that while it is true that the term of 4 years coincides in both provisions, the time from which the time starts to count differs in one and the other case, since the paragraph of Article 3 provides that This must be counted "from the enactment of this law", while the fourth indent of Article 4 (4) determines what should be done "from the implementation of the Single Transit Register, RUNT".

The previous circumstances, "put in a state of uncertainty both the user and the administration, since the existence of contradictions in the articulated CNTT generates legal instability and, by consequently, are totally inconvenient".

Likewise, he points out that paragraph 3 of the same Article 4 of the Bill which states that " In order to guarantee the free exchange of licenses, transit organizations are authorized to discount, for one time, a sum equal to 1 minimum wage, current legal daily (smdv), for each license issued, of the resources that must be transferred to the Ministry of Transport by concept of venal species ", it is also unconstitutional due to procedural defects, since it transgredi the article 157 Superior, and by the same path, the article 147 of the 5th Act 1992.

On the subject, he clarifies that " theparagraph was introduced in the proposed modifications for the second debate in the Senate, being approved in this debate, without any discussion about the possibility of discounting money from the transfers that the transit agencies make to the Ministry of Transport for the concept of venal species. In none of the Gacetas in which the project was published, the papers for the first debate in the Constitutional Sexual Commissions of both Houses and the texts approved by them, as well as in which the paper was published for the second debate in The House of Representatives and the text approved by the Plenary contain some text that is equivalent to the material content of the third paragraph here accused.

Thus, according to the President of the Republic, it can be said that the inclusion of this text in the fourth debate constitutes a violation of the principles of consistency and identity.

The following is stated "paragraph 3 of Article 4 of the Bill is unconstitutional to the extent that the principles of identity and consistency were violated in its formation, as long as it has been paragraph was added in the last debate, without having even been discussed either in the respective Constitutional Sextas Committees of each House, nor in the Plenary of the House of Representatives, in the second debate".

2. Stance taken by the National Congress.

In the face of the President of the Republic's argument that "The content of Article 4 (4) and paragraph 2 (2) and Article 6 (2) or Article 6 (2) or Article 6 (2) or Article 6 (2) or Article 6 (2) or Article 6 (2) of the draft The process of renewal of the driving license that makes its application impossible to create legal uncertainty for the recipient of the norm. ", the congressmen estimated that the presidential objection was actually directed against two articles, that is, articles 4o and 6o.

Thus, in relation to Article 4 of the Bill, the congressmen considered the following:

" We find that there is indeed a contradiction, as the aforementioned article introduces new technical characteristics to driving licences, thus producing an obligation for citizens to change them with the In order to adapt them to these conditions, but on the latter there are two provisions which are contrary to each other, so paragraph 4 of Article 4 (4) indicates that the citizens will have a period of 4 years from the implementation of the Runt and Paragraph 2o indicates that the time limit for such adaptation to the new technical characteristics, will be 4 years from the enactment of the law.

" So things, and for the purpose of remedying the objectionable text, the commission proposes the text that will later be indicated. (Added grills).

In the face of the second argument of the Executive, according to which paragraph 3 of the same article 4 is unconstitutional because of procedural defects, since " href="policy_constitution_1991_pr005.html#157"> 157 of the Superior Statute and by the same path in Article 147 of the 5th Act of 1992. This text was included in the fourth debate of the Bill, that is, for the second debate in the Senate of the Republic, both the principle of the consequences and the principle of identity, which were extensively studied, explained and reiterated by the Constitutional Court", the congressmen oppose by arguing the following:

" That argument does not correspond to reality of what happened in the project debate in the Senate Committee VI, for the transcript of the day 3 of June, appears with vertical clarity, the following:

Honorable Senator Plinio Edilberto Olano Becerra: Senator Carlos, we have to guarantee gratuitousness; that was a very big discussion that took place in Law 1005 and until today The National Government has been unable to determine who is going to take that cost; I invite you to be determined immediately and would be adding, honorable Senators, a paragraph (a) or not a paragraph, but a paragraph to the article that says next: To guarantee gratuitousness, allow the transit agencies to discount to a the current minimum wage of the resources that they have to cancel because of the payment of the venal species. It turns out that out of every 100 pesos paid for this issue, 35 pesos cost the venal species that the Ministry charges, then the Ministry that does not spend more looking for where to take out the resources to pay the licenses, but from here we authorize the transit agencies, which are the ones that issue the license, to neglect the payment of the venal species up to a minimum wage, which is something like 15,000 pesos, which will be neglected directly from the payment of venal species to the Ministry of Transportation, because someone has to assume it, and do it for one time. Then that would be my proposition, Mr President; if you want to put it here in draft, and I present it to add.

President:

In consideration of the proposition presented by the Senator.

Secretariat:

With the modification.

President:

With the amendment of the article with the amendment tabled by Senator Plinio Olano, do you approve it?

Secretariat:

It has been approved, Mr. President.

Point that is then ratified, as it appears in the transcript of June 4 of this year, when at the request of the Ministry of Transport it is requested to reopen the discussion of the same, being subsequently approved.

As for the reasons for inconvenience raised by the Executive, in the sense that "the measure is inconvenient since its implementation demands a considerable amount of resources. In fact, taking into account the number of transit licenses that must be renewed to approximately 8 million, we have to the totality of the resources that the Ministry of Transport will no longer perceive of venal species, amounts to an approximate sum of $122,664 million, which would significantly affect the budget of that entity, " the congressmen did not accept it for how much " we consider the argument is not acceptable, since the gratuitousness for the user in the renewal of the licenses driving, is enshrined in article 16 of Law 1005 of 2006".

Now, in order to overcome the existing contradiction, the congressmen proposed a new text, eliminating the provision contained in paragraph 4 of Article 4 of the draft and insisting on the wording of paragraph 3.

Thus, the article would finally be left as follows:

" Article 4o. Article 17 of Law 769 of 2002, will remain so:

Article 17. Grant. The driver's license will be granted for the first time to those who meet all the requirements described in Article 19 of this Code, by the public or private entity authorized for the purpose by the agency transit in their respective jurisdiction

The format of the driving licence shall be the only national format, for which the Ministry of Transport shall establish the technical information sheet for its preparation and the corresponding control mechanisms.

New driving licenses will contain at least the following data: full driver name, identification document number, footprint, blood type, date of birth, category of licence, restrictions, date of issue and body that issued it.

Within the technical characteristics to be contained in the driving licences, a two-dimensional bar code or other electronic, magnetic or optical device shall be included with the data in the register permitting the reading and updating of these. The new driving licences shall allow the transit body to confront the identity of the respective holder in accordance with the applicable law on the matter at no cost.

PARAGRAFO 1o. The driver of the driving license of any category will be assigned a total of twelve (12) points, which will be reduced or recovered according to their behavior, as a driver, compliance with what is set in this Code.

PARAGRAFO 2o. Who is currently the holder of a driving license, which does not comply with the technical conditions set out in this article and in the regulations that the Ministry of Transportation, must replace it in a term of forty-eight (48) months counted from the enactment of this law, in accordance with the provisions of article 15 of Law 1005 of 2006. For this purpose, you must present peace and save for traffic violations and the certificate referred to in Article 19 of this Code.

PARAGRAFO 3o. To ensure free license change, transit agencies are authorized to discount, for one time, a sum equal to 1 minimum wage, current legal daily (smdv), for each license. issued, of the resources which it is required to transfer to the Ministry of Transport by way of venal species.

On the other hand, in respect of Article 6o of the Bill, in which the second paragraph states that "Licences which, at the date of enactment of this Law, have five (5) years or more of their issue, shall be to be endorsed for the first time, on the same date as the respective license is renewed, according to the schedule issued by the Ministry of Transport. In other cases, the first endorsement shall be made payable, once the five (5) years of issue are fulfilled", the congressmen admit the following:

"In this regard, we find that effectively exists a contradiction, between the 2nd paragraph of Article 4o of the project and paragraph 2 of Article 6o of the project, For one side it is being indicated that the replacement of the driving licences that do not comply with the new technical characteristics must be done in a term of forty eight (48) months counted from the enactment of the present

With the purpose of overcoming the contradiction existing and the unconstitutionality proposed by the National Government we propose the following text, eliminating paragraph 2 of article 6o of the project.

Article 6o. Article 22 of Law 769 of 2002, will remain so:

Article 22. Duration of the driving licence. Driving licences for service vehicles other than the public will have an indefinite validity. However, every five (5) years, the licence holder must endorse it, for which a further examination of physical, mental and motor-coordination fitness will be carried out, which will enable the required skills to be maintained. driving.

Driving licenses for public service vehicles will be valid for three (3) years, at the end of which they will be requested to endorse them, presenting a new examination of physical, mental and coordination fitness. motor, and the registration of information or certificate in which it is found to be updated by way of payment of fines for violations of the rules of transit, duly executed.

PARAGRAFO. All public service drivers over sixty (60) years will be required to endorse their driving license annually, demonstrating through the respective examination, their physical, mental and coordinating fitness. motor. Similarly, every three (3) years will be done by service drivers other than the public, from sixty-five (65) years of age.

In the above terms, we welcome the objections raised by the Executive. (Grills and underscores added).

3. Concept of Fiscal View.

The Fiscal View considers that the objections raised by the President of the Republic against paragraph 3 of Article 4 of Bill No. 87 of 2007, Senate; 12 of 2006, House, are unfounded because this rule is in line with the principles of identity and legislative consistency.

fact, the Public Ministry shares the rejection of the objection against paragraph 3 of Article 4 of the Draft Law because, in addition to its inclusion and thematic approval in the debate in the Sixth Commission of the Senate of the Republic, no the principle of identity is violated because, and it is the most important thing, there is thematic and teleological connection in the proposed area with the rest of Article 4. In fact, this article regulates the granting of driving licences for the first time under certain electronic security features which do not have the old licences. In the words of the Fiscal View:

" Necessarily, this entails the mandatory change of old licenses free of charge to the citizen, which has costs to be borne by someone, in this case by the State. That was what (a) the legislature has decided in paragraph 3 of Article 4 (3), in charge of the resources obtained by way of venal species (payment of fees for the issue of plates, certificates of mobilisation and licences for transit and driving).

Therefore, the Attorney General's Office requests the Constitutional Corporation to declare the presidential objections against paragraph 3 of Article 4 of the 2007 Senate Bill No. 87; 12 of 2006, Camara.

4. Solution to the concrete case by the Constitutional Court.

4.1. Texts of the rules objected.

Article 4o. Article 17 of Law 769 of 2002 will thus remain:

Within the technical characteristics to be contained in the driving licences shall include, inter alia, a two-dimensional bar code or other electronic, magnetic or optical device with the data in the register allowing for the reading and updating of these. The driving licences, which do not have these safety elements, must be renewed according to the schedule issued by the Ministry of Transport in this respect, in a period of 4 years, counted from the implementation of the National Single Transit Record, RUNT.

(...)

PARAGRAFO 2o. Who is currently the holder of a driving licence, which does not comply with the technical conditions laid down in this Article and in the regulations which the Ministry of Transport shall issue for that purpose, shall replace it in a the term of forty-eight (48) months counted from the enactment of this law, in accordance with the provisions of article 15 of Law 1005 of 2006. For this purpose, you must present peace and save for traffic violations and the certificate referred to in Article 19 of this code.

PARAGRAFO 3o. To ensure free license change, transit agencies are authorized to discount, for one time, a sum equal to 1 minimum wage, current legal daily (SMDV), for each license issued, of the resources that must be transferred to the Ministry of Transport by way of venal species.

Article 6o. Article 22 of Law 769 of 2002, will remain so:

Article 22. Driving License Vigency. Driving licences for service vehicles other than the public will have an indefinite effect. However, every five (5) years, the licence holder must endorse it, for which a further examination of physical, mental and motor-coordination fitness will be carried out, which will enable the required skills to be maintained. driving.

The licenses that, at the date of enactment of this law, have five (5) years or more of the issue, must be endorsed for the first time, on the same date as the respective license is renewed, according to the programming that you issue the Ministry of Transport. In other cases, the first endorsement shall be made payable once the five (5) years of issue are fulfilled.

4.2. Legal problem raised.

The President of the Republic objected to the contents of paragraph 4 and paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 4, as well as to article 6o of the Draft Law, arguing that there were serious inconsistencies in the related to the process of renewal of the driving license that make it impossible to apply it, generating legal uncertainty for the recipient of the norm. The abovementioned inconsistencies would be presented as soon as paragraph 2 of Article 4 of the Bill determines that " Who is currently the holder of a driving licence, which does not comply with the technical conditions laid down in this Article and in the regulations which the Ministry of Transport will issue for this purpose, replace it in a term of forty-eight (48) months counted from the enactment of this law, in accordance with the provisions of article 15 of Law 1005 of 2006, " Article 4 (4) states that ' Driving licenses, which do not have these security elements, must be renewed according to the schedule issued by the Ministry of Transport in this respect, in a period of 4 years, counted from the implementation of the National Single Transit Registry, RUNT ".

To be followed, the Executive Branch states that this is really an objection for inconvenience and not for unconstitutionality, in the following terms:

" The circumstances described put in a state of uncertainty both the user and the administration, since the existence of contradictions in the articulated of the CNTT generates legal instability and, therefore, are totally inconvenient". (Added grills).

The Congress of the Republic, for its part, welcomed the presidential objections, made out of inconvenience, and proposed adopting a new text by overcoming them.

In this order of ideas, in the case of objections for inconvenience, and not for unconstitutionality, the Court will refrain from ruling on them.

On the other hand, the President of the Republic objected to the unconstitutional paragraph 3 of Article 4 of the Draft Law, to which the In order to guarantee the free exchange of licenses, transit organizations are authorized to discount, for one time, a sum equal to 1 minimum wage, current legal daily (smdv), for each license issued, of the resources that obligatorily transfer to the Ministry of Transport by concept of venal species ", arguing that the principles of identity and consistency had been violated, since that paragraph was added in the last debate," without having even been discussed in each House's respective Constitutional Sex Commissions, or in the House of Representatives Plenary, in the second debate. "

El Salvador] The Congress of the Republic did not welcome the presidential objection because of a vice of form, indicating that the issue was discussed in the Senate's Sixth Committee. Similarly, the Fiscal View alleges that there is a thematic and teleological connection with the rest of Article 4.

Thus, the Court must resolve the following legal problem: paragraph 3 of Article 4 of the Bill, to the extent that it was included in the last debate, does it not know the principles of identity and consistency? For such purposes, this Corporation (i) will refer to its principal pronouncements on the principles of relative identity and its consecutiveness; and (ii) determine whether these were violated in the specific case.

4.3. Concrete case solution.

4.3.1. Major pronouncements about the principles of relative identity and consistency.

The principle of consistency, in the terms of Judgment C- 208 of 2005 and reiterated in judgment C- 539 of 2008, prescribes that the approval procedure of the bills must be consist of four debates which, by express constitutional provision, must be celebrated in a successive, both in commissions and in plenary, except for the exceptions embodied in the Constitution and the law_[11].

Presented in this way, the principle of consequence is to guarantee the concentration of the legislative activity, with the purpose of conjuring the negative consequences that causes the absence of temporal limits in the development of the regulatory production function. In this sense, it is observed that this lack promotes an inadequate procrastination within the legislative process, which in turn has a negative impact on the materialization of certain constitutional ends that must be addressed in the procedure. approval of the law. The unjustified extension of the legislative process makes it particularly difficult to carry out citizen control, since it imposes a disproportionate burden on those concerned in their exercise, which is consistent with the monitoring of the This is an unlimited period, which results in excessive wear and tear which, in practice, makes it possible to carry out such checks.

Likewise, such a practice could lead to the enactment of obsolete regulations that become useless or obsolete by completing the approval process, since the social scenario in which the law is applied is essentially dynamic and In the absence of the temporary limits, the Congress demands a careful examination of the social relations and the consequent correspondence with the proposed normative contents. Therefore, "the principle of consistency constitutes a reasonable parameter of legislative efficiency that seeks the concentration of the normative effort in certain projects, which, for the reasons noted, must be approved by following a linear sequence and addressing an accurate time limit "_[12].

On the other hand, as stated in Judgment C-208 of 2005, in the development of the principle of consequence, the obligation to examine and to debate is imposed on both the committees and the plenary of the Chambers. all the issues that have been proposed, which is why it is forbidden for them to renounce this duty or to decline their competence to defer it to another legislative cell with the aim of delaying the debate on a given matter _[13].12In this regard, the Court has pointed out that " In fact, the whole of the article proposed in the presented paper must be discussed, debated and approved or improved by the permanent constitutional commission or the plenary, as the case may be. With regard to the amending or additive proposals in the course of the debate, as well as the deletions, they should also be discussed, discussed and voted on, unless the author of the proposal decides to withdraw it before it is subject to a vote or to be amended, in accordance with the provisions of Article 111 of Law 5 of 1992. A decision must be taken and the same is not the case for a matter, so that a vacuum in the legislative procedure that violates the principle of the consequences will be promoted _[14

Likewise, as was done in Judgment C- 539 of 2008, the Court reiterates the constitutional subrules deduced from the principle under study in Judgment C-839 of 2003:

-- Both the commissions and the plenaries should study and debate all the issues that have been proposed during the legislative process, since the compliance with this obligation guarantees the fulfillment of the four-year rule. debates enshrined in article 157 C.P.;

-- No legislative cell can omit the exercise of its powers and delegate the study and approval of a proposed text within it to another instance of the Congress so that the debate on that particular matter is taken up there;

-- The whole of the proposed article for the first or second debate, as well as proposals that modify or add to it, should be discussed, debated, approved or imtested within the legislative body in which they are submitted to consideration _[15].

On the other hand, in relation to the principle of relative identity, it has been understood that by making the procedure of the formation of the laws more flexible, the democratic principle is privileged, because in this way the expression of all the different currents of thought represented in the chambers of the Chambers " so that the option finally adopted is the result of a leisurely reflection and an open confrontation of positions, which would be truncated if The plenary sessions will only be allowed to approve or reject the text that comes from the commissions, without the ability to modify, add or trim it " _[16].

As to the specific content of the relative identity command, the Court has held:

" [E] n the scope of the legislative process and in point to the principle of identity, what the Charter demands is that the Chambers debate and test regulations Concerning the matters that the law deals with, that is, that it exists identity in the material content of the provisions and not that they comply with the content of the projects and that they refrain from considering the various developments that such content is susceptible. If this is the case, linking the subjects of the laws to this level of specificity, it would be impossible to introduce specific regulations related to areas not foreseen in the initial projects. What the Charter demands is that the different stages of the legislative process by it consecrated are exhausted in relation to the matter subject to regulation but not that they are exhausted in relation to each of the points that can be addressed in the matter _[17]" (blacksills added).

This scope would be specified in Judgment C-1147 of 2003 in the sense that while the introduction by the plenary of modifications, amendments or even new articles to the articulated (i) these changes must relate to subjects dealt with and approved in the first debate; (ii) these issues should also be closely related to the content of the project. Consequently, "although the Congress of the Republic is the holder of the law-making configuration in law, when it comes to the introduction of amendments to the bills, the development of such a power must be powered within certain parameters to ensure the safeguarding of constitutional text " _[18].

Specifically about the possibility of introducing new articles was held in the aforementioned decision:

" In this regard, this Corporation has acknowledged that when one of the Chambers inserts a new article into the project giving it its approval, and it is completely ignored by the other Chamber, there is a discrepancy that can be reconciled by the accidental mediation commissions. However, according to the criteria that have been exposed, it is appropriate to specify that this is only possible in cases where the subject matter of the discrepancy has been considered by the plenaries of the two Corporations in any sense. Otherwise, even if it is a message of urgency and the second debate has taken place simultaneously, the fact that the new issue has not been touched by one of the plenaries, affects the constitutional demand foreseen in the article 157 Higher relative to which the articles of a project must meet the regulatory debates as long as they treat various subjects; requirement that, otherwise, does not indicate or provide for a treatment differential versus the assumption that it is concurrent or successive debates.

Dealing with the simultaneous debates, the Court has already held that the concurrency means " that the debate will arise in the two Chambers at the same time and this implies that the same one cannot deal but about the project as was approved in the first debate in joint sessions of the constitutional commissions " [Judgment C-044 of 2002]. In order to specify that the concurrency imposes the discussion of the project in the terms in which it was approved in joint commissions, this means that the possibility of including new articles is conditioned to the fact that the subject in the been approached by the two plenary sessions directly or indirectly. It is this circumstance, and none other, that legitimizes the intervention of the conciliation commissions, in the event in which an article is approved by one Chamber and ignored by the other. "

4.3.2. Applying the principles to the specific case

In the specific case, as has been explained, the President of the Republic alleges that paragraph 3 of Article 4 of the draft law was adopted in violation of the principles of relative identity and consequence, since that was incorporated during the last debate, that is, in the Plenary of the Senate of the Republic. The Congress of the Republic, for its part, does not welcome the objection, bringing up an aside from the debate that took place in the Senate Committee VI.

The Constitutional Court considers that the presidential objection for unconstitutionality raised against paragraph 3 of Article 4 of the draft law, for the alleged violation of the principles of relative identity and its consequences is not call to thrive, for the following reasons.

First of all, reviewed in detail the evidence provided to the constitutionality process, the Court finds that, effectively during the Session of the Sixth Commission of the Senate of the Republic, held on June 3, 2008, according to According to the 33rd Act, Senator Olano Becerra proposed the incorporation of a new article concerning the issue of the gratuitousness of licenses, in the following terms:

" Honorable Senator Plinio Edilberto Olano Becerra: Senator Carlos, we have to guarantee gratuitousness; that was a very big discussion that was given in Law 1005 and until today " The National Government has been unable to determine who will assume this cost; I you to be determined immediately and it would be to add, honorable Senators, a paragraph or not a paragraph, but a paragraph to the article that Say the following: " To guarantee gratuitousness, authorize the transit agencies to discount up to an existing minimum daily wage of the resources that they have to cancel for the payment of the venal species ". It turns out that out of every 100 pesos paid for this issue, 35 pesos cost the venal species that the Ministry charges, then the Ministry that does not spend more looking for where to take out the resources to pay the licenses, but from here we authorize the transit agencies, that are the ones that issue the license, to neglect the payment of the venal species up to a minimum wage, that is something like 15,000 pesos, that they neglect it directly from the payment of species venal to the Ministry of Transport, because someone has to assume it, and do it for one time. Then that would be my proposition. (aggregate blacksls).

What's more, the same text reads as follows:

" President: Please consider the article with the amendment presented by Senator Plinio Olano, which is approved.

The above shows that, contrary to what was held in the text of the presidential objection, the issue of the gratuitousness of the licenses was not included in the last debate, but was debated and approved in the third debate.

Second, the issue of new driving licences was always present in parliamentary debates. In fact, in the text of the "Ponence for First Debate to Bill 012 of 2006 Camara", the need to change the current licenses based on a point system was raised. Let's see.

Central Proposal: Points License

The texts that we propose to add seek to generate a system of points that, taking advantage of the existence of an information system like SIMIT, generates an additional stimulus for a more responsible behavior by the drivers.

This is proposed:

Add, to the pecuniary fine, a system that allows to generate conditions that disincentive the commission of infractions.

Give 12 points to drivers ' seriousness and responsibility for each person who gets a license. The same amount will be allocated in the cases of licences already issued.

For each fine received, and depending on the severity thereof, not only will an economic penalty be incurred, but a specific number of points will be deducted.

As the code already establishes the existence of four categories of infractions, according to its severity the loss of one point for categories A and B is proposed, and of 2 in the case of categories C and D, established in the article 131 of Law 769 of 2002.

In the case of drunken driving offences, a different category in the current code, 6 points will be lost. In the face of this behavior, which implies a huge degree of irresponsibility, we have to be vertical.

The system also provides that, when the holder of a driving licence has not been subject to a firm sanction in the last year, he will recover two points. That is, whoever is not a recurring offender and improves their behavior, society renews (rewards) their trust.

The loss of the 12 points will automatically result in the cancellation of the license for one year, forcing the citizen to meet all the initial requirements for a new driving license.

In any case, the historical record of all the comparisons will be maintained for two specific purposes: First, that the public transport companies have the obligation to periodically review the registration of each of the drivers and use it. as a criterion for their remaining, and, second, that the insurance companies can consult it in order to feed their risk analysis at the time of granting the policies.

I would then advise that, while it was in the Senate of the Republic where it was discussed whether the new licenses were going to be free, it is simply the continuation of a debate, which took place in the House of Representatives, concerning the provision of new technical specifications for future driving licences. In other words, it wasn't really about a novel issue raised exclusively during the third debate of the bill.

In short, the Court considers that the presidential objection is unfounded because the principles of relative identity and its consequent nature were not violated.

Thus, the Court will declare unfounded the presidential objection filed against paragraph 3 of Article 4 of Bill No. 012 of 2006 Chamber, 087 of 2007 Senate, " href="ley_0769_2002.html#1"> 769 2002 (National Transit Code) and other provisions are dictated", and consequently, is declared to be exequable.

1. Objection to the unconstitutionality of the paragraph of Article 15.

The expression is asserted " It is forbidden for the drivers of vehicles to participate in commercial or charitable activities to two hundred (200) meters to the round of traffic lights, signs of transit, step to level, pedestrian crossing at level, pedestrian crossing at level, separators, berms, cycleways, cyclorroutes, parking lots, fishing grounds, all kinds of bridges and in the areas destined for the circulation of all types of vehicles", from the paragraph of article 15 of the bill contravenes the articles href="policy_constitution_1991.html#13"> 13, 16 , 24, 25, 158 , and 333 " ".

In particular, it explains that, while the rule apparently seeks to restrict the activity of those people who are driving a vehicle in order to ensure the safety and comfort of the inhabitants, "the The wording of the rule extends to matters of violation of the fundamental rights of those persons who for the only fact of being drivers cannot exercise commercial or beneficial activities to 200 meters to the round of the areas to which refers to the paragraph".

A row followed points out that " every time the norm in commented does not contemplate the prohibition for a person who is driving a vehicle to perform any activity at the traffic lights and other sites contiguous to the tracks and that for such conduct the driver generates or obstructs the normal transit of the other vehicles, activity that if it could give rise to the commission of an infraction, the wording of the norm is totally violatory of the articles href="policy_constitution_1991.html#13"> 13, 16, 24, 25, 333 of the Policy Constitution".

It adds that the restrictions imposed are not really transit rules, "as it is apparently intended to be seen", but that it establishes restrictions on the exercise of commercial activities, that is, they are of a character Police, overrunning the regulated matter in the CNTT, would be in violation of the article 158 Superior, in particular, the principle of unity of matter.

2. Position taken by the Congress of the Republic.

Regarding the presidential objection presented in the sense that with article 15 of the bill while " apparently intends to restrict the activity of those people who are driving a vehicle in order to guarantee the safety and comfort of the inhabitants, regulating related aspects of transit, the The wording of the rule extends to matters which are not related and which are in violation of the fundamental rights of persons who, by virtue of the fact that they are drivers, cannot exercise commercial or charitable activities 200 meters to the round of the areas to which the paragraph refers ", the They ended up nodding, albeit with completely different arguments, as are the following:

" We consider that the National Government, wrongly interprets the provision in analysis, without taking into account the rules of interpretation contained in Law 57 of 1887 and in particular, because it does not know the spirit of the legislator, contained in the presentation presented to the Senate Committee VI. The Government's objection is based on a pilgrim argument, far removed from any currently valid interpretation rule. "

The National Government, interprets that the legislator has established, per se, a restriction on the activities carried out by the drivers, when the spirit of the legislator is clearly stated in the paper, as follows.

Equally, measures are established that seek to improve the mobility and safety of drivers, passengers and pedestrians, as well as to prohibit the drivers of vehicles from participating in commercial or charitable activities Two hundred (200) meters to the round of traffic lights, signs of transit, step to level, pedestrian crossing at level, pedestrian crossing at level, separators, berma, bike paths, cyclorroutes, parking lots, parking lots, all kinds of bridges and in the destined areas the circulation of all types of vehicles.

On the other hand, the National Government attempts to argue its objection, indicating that with this rule the legislator regulates police and non-transit issues, thus violating article 158 of the National Constitution.

In this regard, there are also no legally valid reasons or arguments that support the government's position; on the one hand it is necessary that this evidence the justification of the norm; that is, the improvement of the mobility and the safety on the tracks, these being the principles of the Code in analysis. On the other hand, the provisions of Article 1or Law 769 of 2002, National Transit Code, should be taken into account.

Finally, it is necessary to reiterate in accordance with the above that the purpose of the legislator is not the prohibition of sales in the areas indicated in the paragraph of the article in study, (which is the responsibility of the authorities (a) to prohibit drivers from participating in them, with the aim of improving road mobility and as a safety measure for both pedestrians and drivers.

Despite all the above mentioned, and in the light of the economic situation that the least favored population presents today in the big cities of the country we consider that the paragraph of article 1 should be removed from the bill.

passage] However, the Congress in the use of political control should open the debate so that street vendors, who some of them exercise their office under the precarious condition of displacement, will not continue to be victims of the use of those who are subjected to the abuse of minors, mothers or orphans who are victims of violence who, at least temporarily, find a way of survival in this informal mode of work.

Another thing in this sense will have to be done to verify whether those goods that they market, pay taxes, or whether they are purchased with legal resources or come from contraband or an asset-laundering practice.

In the above terms, we exclude from the project the paragraph of Article 15, welcoming the objection presented by the National Government. (grills and underscores added).

3. Concept of Fiscal View.

The Fiscal View did not rule in relation to the presidential objection filed against the paragraph of article 15 of the bill. In fact, at the moment of rendering the respective concept, (No. 4707) the Attorney General's Office states that the same will cover the following:

" By trade dated January 23, 2009, the President of the Senate of the Republic referred to the Attorney General of the Nation a copy of the draft law of the reference, once the procedure of insistence of approval by the two Chambers was dispensed. Legislative to objections unconstitutionality made by the President of the Republic to paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 4 (4) and paragraph 2 of Article 5 (o), paragraph 2 or Article 8 (o), Article 11 (1) or Article 4 (1) of the Treaty 13, Article 17, paragraph 2 or Article 24, and Article 27, all of Bill 87 of 2007 Senate, 12 2006, Chamber. This copy was filed in the Office of Correspondence of the Attorney General's Office on 3 February 2009.

4. Solution to the concrete case by the Constitutional Court

4.1. The texts of the rules objected.

Article 15. Article 76 of Law 769 of 2002, will remain so:

Article 76. Places prohibited for parking. It is prohibited to park vehicles at the following locations:

On platforms, green areas or on public space for pedestrians, recreation or conservation.

In arteries, highways, safety zones, or within a crosswalk.

On main and collector routes in which the prohibition or restriction in relation to schedules or types of vehicles is expressly stated.

On bridges, viaducts, tunnels, low passes, elevated structures, or any of the accesses to these.

In areas expressly intended for parking or stopping of certain types of vehicles, including public service vehicle stops, or for limited physical vehicles.

In lanes dedicated to bulk transport without authorization.

A distance greater than thirty (30) centimeters from the sidewalk.

In double row of parked vehicles, or in front of hydrants and garage entries.

In curves.

Where to interfere with the output of parked vehicles.

Where transit authorities prohibit it.

In the area of safety and protection of the railway, on the main road, secondary roads, parks, stations and railway annexations.

PARAGRAFO. Vehicle drivers are prohibited from participating in commercial or charitable activities to two hundred (200) meters at the round of traffic lights, traffic signals, level crossing, pedestrian crossing at a level, pedestrian crossing at the level, separators, berms, cyclovies, cyclorroutes, parking lots, fishing grounds, all types of bridges and in areas intended for the movement of all types of vehicles.

Non-compliance with this rule will be sanctioned with thirty (30) daily minimum legal wages in force, smldv.

4.2. The legal problem.

The President of the Republic objected to the paragraph of Article 15 of the draft law as unconstitutional, since, in its concept, such a provision, although it seeks to restrict the activity of those people who are driving a In order to guarantee the safety and comfort of the inhabitants, regulating related aspects of transit, the wording of the norm extends to matters that are not related and, which are violative to the rights fundamental of those people who for the sake of being drivers cannot exercise Commercial or charitable activities 200 meters to the round of the areas to which the paragraph refers.

The Congress of the Republic accepted the presidential objection, while the Fiscal View omitted to refer to it.

4.3. Resolution of the particular case.

The Court considers that, in the present case, an inhibitory failure due to lack of object is also appropriate. Indeed, this Corporation has considered that "the insistence of the Chambers" is a procedural budget, in order for the Court to have jurisdiction in the analysis of the exequability of the object project. If that fault, in whole or in part, is to be understood as having been fully or partially shelved, according to Article 200 of Law 3a of 1992 _[37].

In this order of ideas, the Court will declare itself inhibited in order to make a substantive ruling in relation to the paragraph of Article 15 of Bill 012 of 2006 House, 087 of 2007 Senate, "for which the Law is reformed href="ley_0769_2002.html#1"> 769 2002 (National Transit Code) and other provisions are dictated", for current lack of object.

G. SEVENTH OBJECTION.

1. Objection to unconstitutionality of Articles 17 (partial) and 21.

It is claimed that article 17 of the bill violates articles 29, 209 and 287 Superior.  

It is explained that article 17 of the bill introduces a system of points in front of the commission of traffic violations "with inconsistencies and contradictions that make it difficult to implement them effectively, in contravention of the law. the principle of legality contained in article 29 of the Political Constitution that requires the legislator to establish clear rules for the investigation and enforcement of sanctions with observance of the principle of legality".

It also argues that the contested provision, which amends Article 93 of the CNTT, was included in Chapter IV of Title III of the CNTT which refers to the rules for 'public transport', which leads to the submission of errors. (i) interpretation of this system only for drivers of this type of vehicle. Title IV of the CNTT contains provisions on penalties applicable to the actors of transit.

Later, "The points licensing system was enshrined in articles 17 and 21 of the bill. When the two rules are compared, two different points of procedure are presented as follows:

In particular, it is ensured that such contradictions can lead to the collapse of the system, in particular as regards the suspension and cancellation of driving licences. The following example is presented in the following example "the infringement consists in parking in prohibited sites, of the literal c) of article 131 of the CNTT, in the light of the new article 93 in agreement with the new Article 26 would result in the automatic suspension of the driving licence (for the loss of 6 points), whereas if the points system enshrined in the new Article 131 is applied it would only generate the loss of 2 points".

In this order of ideas, it alleges the lack of clarity in sanctioning matters, which is evidenced in the contradictions between articles 17 and 21 of the bill, which leave the official's discretion to apply the law. sanction. Likewise "violates the principle of legality since the description of the sanctions contained in the articles mentioned is not according to the precision, lex certa, that is demanded".

Coupled with the above, the points system enshrined in Article 17 of the Bill, which amends Article 93, does not address the principle of proportionality "or from a qualitative or quantitative perspective".

Later it is explained that "the proposed system does not correspond to the amount of the pecuniary sanctions and the loss of points, because while between the sanctions of the literal b) and the c) there is an increase of the fine equivalent to just under 100% (from 8 to 15 smldv), the penalty of points is increased by 200% (from 2 to 6 points) ".

It adds that the principle of proportionality between the failure committed and the sanction to be imposed is violated, "if it were to be fully applied to it, violations such as transiting without the required light devices, driving a vehicle with one or more open doors or parking on prohibited sites would cause the automatic suspension of the license".

It is concluded by saying the following "it could be noted that such a system would not be applicable under the provisions of Article 7o of the project, which amended Article 26 of the CNTT, since it is stated that the points are shall establish in accordance with Article 131 of the CNTT. However, to avoid the internal contradiction of the system and to give the administration more clarity, it is inappropriate to maintain two different point systems".

Furthermore, in terms of violations of items 209 and 287 Superiors, it is argued that the RUNT is a single registration system national central, online, which committed annotations and transactions related to automotive, drivers, transit licenses, transportation companies, teaching centers, among others.

Thus, at present, and in compliance with the terms and commitments agreed upon in the respective concession contract, the object of which is the provision of the public service of the National Traffic Registry, the concessionaire is working for their own account and risk in the design and operation of the system, for the purpose of issuing information certificates and different registers, in total, permanent and compulsory coordination with all transit agencies in the country.

Indicates that one of the fundamental characteristics of the RUNT is the reliability and agility of the system, since the information is reported or delivered directly by the originator of the system, that is, by the transit agencies, without cost.

Explains that, to date, SIMIT has been operating, while the integrated system of information on fines and penalties for traffic violations. However, when running the RUNT it will be up to this system and not to SIMIT to issue to all users the certificates, "scrolling it and making it inoperative, because of co-exist two entities with the same function, we would see in the face of unnecessary duplicity of related tasks, which is contrary to the postulates of the administrative function contained in the article 209 of the Constitution, in particular, the economy, speed and efficiency".

In this sense, it is argued that the administrative economy entails minimizing efforts and costs. From there that "considering that the results are the same (registration and issuance of certifications on traffic violations), the duplicity of functions between the RUNT and the SIMIT will contribute to generate a greater burden for the addressees of the rule, while at the same time establishing an inconvenient and inappropriate procedure for useless and inefficient".

The following is stated "the requirement for a double record of the territorial entities ' head violations not only transgresses Article 209 of the Constitution Policy on the principles of economy and effectiveness that should govern the administrative function, but also article 287 of the Political Constitution which refers to the autonomy of territorial entities".

By way of conclusion it is noted that " the obligation laid down in Article 17 (1) or Article 17 to report by the Transit Agencies to the Integrated System of Multas and Penalties SIMIT, the traffic violations so that In turn, it is forwarded to the RUNT, violates the autonomy of the territorial entities enshrined in article 287 of the Constitution as the principles of the administrative function enshrined in the Article 209 constitutional".

2. Position taken by the Congress of the Republic.

In relation to the contradiction between articles 17 and 21 of the bill, which would imply, according to the Executive, a violation of Article 29 Superior, the congressmen argue that " it is necessary to emphasize that the wording that the incongruity presents is originated in article 21 and that the author of that article is the National Government, represented in the debate of the Senate Committee VI by the Ministry of Transportation, who after the articles of the project were coordinated, submitted a request for reform, as it appears in the transcript of June 4, the fruit of which the contradiction is presented".

A row followed, in relation to the alleged violation of Articles 209 and 287 Superiors, the congressmen insist on the The constitutionality of the contested provision, based on the following arguments:

" We consider that the conceptual and practical origin differs in an absolute way from the objectives pursued with the creation of the RUNT, so that they were conceived with clear and defined purposes that make them autonomous and independent, so that The RUNT differs in its ideology and operativity with the SIMIT, since the latter guarantees that no procedures are carried out from those that are the competence of the Transit Organisms where the offender is involved, if he himself does not know find peace and save, and this procedure is achieved by connecting online and real time to all organisms In addition, the Commission has been able to provide information on all the country's violations, which involves the considerable investment of public resources, for the development, regulation of disclosure, training, updating and administration of ".

On the other hand, using the rule command, we could extract that SIMIT is a source of information supply for the RUNT, as set out in the last paragraph of article 11 of Law 769 of 2002.

Once the integrated information system on fines and penalties for traffic violations (SIMIT) has been implemented, the Colombian Federation of Municipalities will hand over the information to the Ministry of Transport to be incorporated into the National Single Transit Registry, RUNT.

This is equally corroborated by the provisions of Article 10, literal (b) of Law 1005 of 2006.

B) They are required to report information to the National Single Transit Registry, RUNT, within a period of no more than 24 hours, after the event has occurred.

As to the fact that the article 287 Superior, it would be sufficient only to highlight the same case law cited by the National Government, in order to show that the content of the Article 10 of Law 769 of 2002 to the respective study and constitutional control by the competent organ for the effect, its effects are understood general, obligatory and make transit to res judicata, so that the facts and aspects on which the constitutional study was done cannot Understand each other with different scopes and contents.

The provision falls within the constitutional framework, as it is part of its general competence to issue codes in all branches and to reform its provisions, as well as to unify the rules on traffic police throughout the territory; This means that without the existence of an integrated, systematized and updated information centre; legal figures such as recidivism would be inoperative, because it would not be possible to determine whether an offender has committed the same fault in any another jurisdiction other than the one to be resolved at that time.

Please note that the rules are of a national nature but with competent authorities in different jurisdictions, which makes it essential to have an integrated system that connects them with information that is truthful and real time, in such a way that, if each authority is to be arbitrated, the sending of the same would cause the legal certainty of the transit sanctions, as well as the principle of legality on which they are built, in the measure that at the time of adopting the respective decision they would not know the preexistence of other sanctions.

In the terms above, we insist on the approval of the proposed article in the project. (grills and underscores added).

3. Concept of Fiscal View.

In relation to the contradiction between the penalty systems by means of points discount to the driving licences, as established in the case of Article 17 (2) and Article 21 of the draft law, the Public Ministry perceives a violation of the principle of legality of due process due to the lack of clarity in the type of sanction to be imposed.

Later, the Attorney General's Office points out that "the sanctioning system of Article 21 is rationally clearer and more precise than that set out in Article 17 objecting, which encompasses its proportionality (principle of favorability (a) Therefore, the presidential objection against this normative aside is well founded and the Constitutional Court will be asked to issue its pronouncement".

On the contrary, as to the objection filed against the first paragraph of article 17 of the bill for an alleged duplicity of functions between SIMIT and the RUNT related to the daily reports of imposed violations that must carry out the transit agencies of the country to the first, and that it, in turn, in accordance with the said sanctions register and keep it available for the second, ' it is perceived that the legislator acted within the scope of its competence, as demonstrated in its objections report, without it infringing the principles of economy and effectiveness applicable to the administrative function".

In fact, the Fiscal View considers that the presidential objection is unfounded because the information systems criticized are carrying out functions for different purposes, without the possibility of integrating the information they handle for the purposes of increase the efficiency of their missions. In this sense, SIMIT is the body that should administer the information in the country on violations imposed for violating the transit rules so that the country's transit agencies can make them effective when the offenders need to services in that field (venal species). The RUNT manages an integrated system of information for other public policy purposes. That is why SIMIT must have the information available for when the RUNT requires it, but it does not necessarily have to be reported in a mandatory manner in real time. "

Finally, regarding the presidential objection against Article 17 (1) or Article 17 of the bill for violation of territorial autonomy in relation to the daily report to be made by the country's transit agencies. Integrated System of Multas and Sanctions for Traffic Violations, "this Fiscal View will not rule on this matter and will ask the Constitutional Court to declare itself inhibited to learn about this charge due to lack of motivation or reasoning in the formulation of the same".

4. Solution to the concrete case by the Constitutional Court

4.1. Text of the objected rule.

Article 17. Article 93 of Law 769 of 2002, will remain so:

Article 93. Driver Infringement Control. Transit agencies shall report on a daily basis to the Integrated System of Multas and Sanctions for traffic violations the violations imposed, in order to be in turn, as and as available for the Single Register RUNT Transit National.

The following points system is set:

For each violation greater than or equal to 8 smldv 2 points.

For each violation greater than or equal to 15 smldv 6 points.

For each violation greater than or equal to 30 smldv 8 points.

PARAGRAFO 1o. The Superintendence of Ports and Transportation will sanction with a fine equivalent to one hundred minimum legal monthly salaries in force (100 smlmv) to the public transport companies, which have in exercise drivers with suspended or cancelled driving license.

PARAGRAFO 2o. The automotive public transport companies will have to establish control and monitoring programs for the traffic violations of the drivers to their service. This program will have to be sent monthly by the public transportation companies automotive to the Superintendence of Ports and Transportation. Companies that do not comply with the above will be sanctioned by that entity with a fine equivalent to one hundred current monthly legal minimum wages (100 smlmv).

PARAGRAFO 3o. The query to the SIMIT database will be free. The issue of certificates will have a cost of a daily legal minimum wage (1 smldv), which will be collected by the entity responsible for the Integrated System of Multas and Sanctions for Transit Infractions.

Court considers that, of the argument put forward by the President of the Republic, as well as the position assumed by the Congress of the Republic, the integrity of Article 21 of the bill was also objected to. The relevant regulatory integration should be brought forward. The object is the following:

Article 21. Article 131 of Law 769 of 2002, will remain so:

Article 131. Loss of points and fines. Violators of transit rules will be punished with the imposition of fines or with fines and loss of points, according to the type of infringement as follows:

A. The driver of a non-motor vehicle or animal traction vehicle that incurs any of the following offences shall be fined equivalent to four (4) current minimum statutory wages:

A. 1 Do not transition to the right of the path.

A. 2 Agate from another vehicle in circulation.

A. 3 Transporting people or things that decrease their visibility and make driving uncomfortable.

A. 4 Transiting by platforms and other places for pedestrian traffic.

A. 5 Do not respect the traffic signals.

A. 6 Transition without the required light devices.

A. 7 Transiting without devices that allow immediate or immediate stop, but in a defective state.

A. 8 Transiting prohibited zones.

A. 9 Forward between two (2) automotive vehicles that are in their respective lanes.

A. 10 Drive by rail or by protection and security zones.

A. 11 Transiting by restricted zones or high-speed tracks such as motorways and arteries, in this case the non-automotive vehicle will be immobilized.

A. 12 Prenar public service with this type of vehicle. In addition, the vehicle shall be immobilised for the first time, for the term of five days, for the second time twenty days and for the third time forty days.

B. It will be sanctioned with a fine equivalent to eight (8) daily minimum legal wages in force and the loss of one (1) point, the driver and/or owner of an automotive vehicle that incurs any of the following violations:

B. 1 Drive a vehicle without taking the driving license.

B. 2 Drive a vehicle with the expired driving license.

B. 3 No plates, or no valid permit issued by transit authority.

B. 4 With adulterated plates.

B. 5 With a single plate, or without the current permit issued by a transit authority.

B. 6 With false plates.

In these cases vehicles will be immobilized.

B. 7 Do not inform the competent transit authority of the change of engine or color of a vehicle. In both cases, the vehicle shall be fixed.

B. 8 Do not pay the toll at established sites.

B. 9 Use sound equipment to volumes that make it uncomfortable for passengers in a public service vehicle.

B. 10 Driving a vehicle with polarized, inked, or obscured glass, without carrying the respective permission, according to the existing regulations on the matter.

B. 11 Driving a vehicle with propaganda, advertising, or adhesives in its windows that hinder visibility.

B. 12 Do not respect the rules established by the competent authority for the transit of funeral mowers.

B. 13 Do not respect the troop formations, the march of parades, processions, burials, student rows and public demonstrations and sporting activities, duly authorized by the transit authorities.

B. 14 Remolate another vehicle violating the provisions of this code.

B. 15 Driving a public service vehicle that does not carry the official fare notice under conditions of easy reading for passengers or possess this impaired or adulterated notice.

B. 16 Allow in a public service vehicle for passenger transport to take animals or objects that make passengers uncomfortable.

B. 17 Abandon a public service vehicle with passengers.

B. 18 Driving an individual public passenger transport vehicle without complying with the provisions of this code.

B. 19 Perform the loading or unloading of a vehicle on sites and hours prohibited by the competent authorities, in accordance with the relevant rules.

B. 20 Transporting easily corrupt meat, fish or food into vehicles that do not meet the conditions set by the Ministry of Transport.

B. 21 Wash vehicles on public roads, in rivers, in canals, and in ravines.

B. 22 Take children under ten (10) years in the front seat.

B. 23 Use radios, sound equipment, or amplification to volumes that exceed the maximum decibels set by environmental authorities. Similarly, use screens, image projectors or the like on the front of the vehicles, while on the move.

C. It will be sanctioned with a fine equivalent to fifteen (15) minimum daily legal wages in force and the loss of two (2) points, the driver and/or owner of an automotive vehicle that incurs any of the following violations:

C. 1 Present adulterated or alien driving license, which will result in vehicle immobilization.

C. 2 Parking a vehicle on prohibited sites.

C. 3 Lock a driveway or intersection with a vehicle, except when the blockage is due to the occurrence of a traffic accident.

C. 4 Parking a vehicle without taking proper precautions or without placing at the distance indicated by this code, the regulatory hazard signals.

C. 5 Do not slow down as directed by this code, when you transit through a school crossing in the schedules and days of operation of the educational institution. Likewise, when transiting through hospital crossings or passenger terminals.

C. 6 Do not use the seat belt by the occupants of the vehicle.

C. 7 Stop signaling with the directional lights or by hand signals and with due anticipation, turn or turn-of-lane maneuver.

C. 8 Transiting without the required light devices or without the elements determined in this code.

C. 9 Do not respect the stop signs at the crossing of a railway line, or drive through the railway or through the protection and safety zones of it.

C. 10 Drive a vehicle with one or more open doors.

C. 11 Do not carry the prevention and security equipment set in this code or in the appropriate regulation.

C. 12 Fuel provider a motor vehicle with the engine on.

C. 13 Driving an automotive vehicle without the appropriate adaptations, when the driver suffers from physical limitation.

C. 14 Translate by restricted sites or hours prohibited by the competent authority. In addition, the vehicle shall be immobilized.

C. 15 Driving a vehicle, private or public service, exceeding the authorized capacity on the transit license or operating card.

C. 16 Driving a school vehicle without the respective permission or regulatory flags, in addition the vehicle will be immobilized.

C. 17 Circular with combinations of vehicles of two (2) or more towed units, without special authority of competent authority.

C. 18 Driving a vehicle authorized to provide public service with the damaged taximeter, with broken seals or adhesive labels with expired or adulterated calibration or when lacking, or when still having, does not comply with the minimum standards of quality and safety required by the competent authority or the competent authority is not in operation and the vehicle shall be immobilised.

C. 19 Leave or pick up passengers at sites other than those demarcated by the authorities.

C. 20 Driving a cargo vehicle in which construction or bulk materials are transported without the ordered protective, hygiene and safety measures. In addition the vehicle shall be immobilized.

C. 21 Do not secure the load to prevent the transported things from falling into the track. In addition, the vehicle shall be immobilized until the situation is remedied.

C. 22 Transport load of dimensions greater than those authorized without meeting the required requirements. In addition, the vehicle shall be immobilised until such a situation is remedied.

C. 23 Imparting on public roads to the public teaching practice to drive, without being authorized to do so.

C. 24 Driving motorcycle without observing the rules set out in this code.

C. 25 Transition, when there is more than one lane, to the left lane of the track at speed that hinders the transit of the other vehicles.

C. 26 Transiting into vehicles of 3.5 or more tons down the left lane of the track when there is more than one lane.

C. 27 Driving a vehicle whose load or passengers obstruct the driver's visibility to the front, rear or side, or prevent control over the steering, brake or safety system, the vehicle shall be immobilized.

C. 28 Make use of own emergency vehicle devices, by drivers of other types of vehicles.

C. 29 Driving a vehicle at top speed to the maximum allowed.

C. 30 Do not take care of a signal to pass the step.

C. 31 Do not abide by the signals or requirements imposed by the transit agents.

C. 32. Do not respect the passage of pedestrians crossing a path in place allowed for them or not to give them the prelation in the slots for it established.

C. 33 Putting a vehicle in motion without the precautions to avoid shocks.

C. 34 Repair a vehicle on public roads, park or sidewalk, or do so in case of emergency, without addressing the procedure outlined in this code.

C. 35 Do not carry out the technical-technical review within the prescribed legal period or when the vehicle is not in suitable technical or polluting emission conditions, even when carrying the corresponding certificates, vehicle shall be fixed.

C. 36 Transport cargo into containers without special fastening devices. The vehicle shall be fixed.

C. 37 Transporting passengers on the platoon of a pickup truck or on the platform of a cargo vehicle, whether it is a van or a platform of stakes.

C. 38 Use mobile communication systems or phones installed in vehicles at the time of driving, except if they are used with accessories or auxiliary equipment to allow for free hands.

C. 39. Violate the parking rules contained in Article 77 of this Code.

D. It will be sanctioned with a fine equivalent to thirty (30) daily minimum legal wages in force and the loss of three (3) points, the driver and/or owner of an automotive vehicle that incurs any of the following violations:

D. 1 Guiding a vehicle without having obtained the corresponding driving license. In addition, the vehicle shall be immobilized on the spot, until it is removed by a person authorised by the offender with a driving licence.

D. 2 Driving without carrying insurance ordered by law. In addition, the vehicle shall be immobilized.

D. 3 Transiting to the contrary to the stipulated path, path, or lane. In the case of motorcycles, the immobilization shall be carried out until the value of the fine is paid or the competent authority decides on its imposition in the terms of Articles 135 and 136 of the National Transit Code.

D. 4 Do not stop at a red or yellow light light, a "PARE" signal, or a flashing red light. In the case of motorcycles, the immobilization shall be carried out until the value of the fine is paid or the competent authority decides on its imposition in the terms of Articles 135 and 136 of the National Transit Code.

D. 6 Drive a vehicle on sidewalks, plazas, pedestrian paths, separators, berms, channelling demarcations, green areas or special routes for non-motorized vehicles. In the case of motorcycles, the immobilization shall be carried out until the value of the fine is paid or the competent authority decides on its imposition in the terms of Articles 135 and 136 of the National Transit Code.

D. 7 Forward to another vehicle in berm, tunnel, bridge, curve, level steps and unregulated crossings or approaching the top of a slope or where the corresponding traffic signal indicates. In the case of motorcycles, the immobilization shall be carried out until the value of the fine is paid or the competent authority decides on its imposition in the terms of Articles 135 and 136 of the National Transit Code.

D. 8 Driving highly dangerous and irresponsible maneuvers that endanger people or things. In the case of motorcycles, the immobilization shall be carried out until the value of the fine is paid or the competent authority decides on its imposition in the terms of Articles 135 and 136 of the National Transit Code.

D. 9 Driving a vehicle without lights or the light, directional or brake devices, or with any of them damaged, in the hours or circumstances required by this code. In addition, the vehicle shall be immobilised, when two (2) or more of these lamps are not operated.

D. 10 Do not allow the passage of emergency vehicles.

D. 11 Driving a vehicle for school transportation with speeding.

D. 12 Allow public passenger service that does not have the required emergency exits. In this case, the fine will be imposed jointly and severally on the company to which it is affiliated and the owner. In the case of a particular vehicle, the penalty shall be imposed jointly and severally on the owner.

D. 13 Driving a vehicle that, without proper authorization, is intended for a service other than that for which it has a transit license. In addition, the vehicle shall be immobilised for the first time, for the term of five days, for the second time twenty days and for the third time forty days.

D. 14 In case of carrying cargo with weight higher than the authorized vehicle, the vehicle shall be immobilized and the excess must be transhipped.

D. 15 The transit authorities will order the immediate immobilization of vehicles that use for their mobilization non-regulated fuels such as propane gas or others that endanger the lives of users or pedestrians.

D. 16 Change of the route or route of the route for a public passenger transport service vehicle, approved by the relevant transit agency. In this case, the fine shall be imposed jointly and severally on the undertaking to which the vehicle and the owner are affiliated. In addition, the vehicle shall be fixed, except for cases of force majeure which are duly authorised by the transit agent.

E. It will be sanctioned with a fine equivalent to forty-five (45) daily legal minimum wages in force and with the loss of six (6) points the driver and/or owner of an automotive vehicle that incurs any of the following violations:

E. 1. Provide fuel to public service vehicles with passengers on board.

E. 2 Refuse to provide the public service without justified cause, provided that such refusal causes disruption of public order.

E. 3. Driving in a state of drunkenness or under the effects of hallucinogenic substances will be treated as set out in article 152 of this code. In the case of drivers of public service vehicles, school transport or driving instructor drivers, the pecuniary fine, the loss of points and the period of suspension of the licence shall be doubled. In all cases of drunkenness the vehicle will be immobilized and the state of drunkenness or alcoholemia will be established by a test that does not cause injury, which will be determined by the Institute of Legal Medicine and Forensic Sciences.

E. 4. Transport in the same vehicle and at the same time persons and dangerous substances such as explosives, toxic, radioactive, unauthorised fuels etc. In these cases the license will be suspended for one (1) year and for two (2) years each time it reoccurs. The vehicle shall be fixed by one (1) year each time.

PARAGRAFO 1o. The driver who has not been sanctioned within a period of one (1) year, will be restored to the missing points.

PARAGRAFO 2o. The traffic violations, the sanction of which is the imposition of fines as described in other articles of Law 769 of 2002, will also result in the loss of 1, 2, 3 or 6 points, if the penalty of fine is in its order of 8, 15, 30 or 45 current daily legal minimum wages.

4.2. Presentation of the legal problem.

The President of the Republic objected by unconstitutionality to articles 17 (partial) and 21 of the bill for the following charges:

First charge: The provision introduces a system of points in front of the commission of traffic violations with inconsistencies and contradictions that hinder their effective implementation, contravening the principle of legality content in article 29 of the Political Constitution that requires the legislator to establish clear rules for the investigation and enforcement of sanctions with enforcement of the principle of legality.

Second charge: The object disposition violates the 209 and 287 Superiors, because they lead to Two integrated systems of information on fines are co-exist, such as the current SIMIT, on the one hand, and the RUNT on the other. In other words, the duplicity of functions between SIMIT and the future RUNT is alleged, which leads to system inefficiency.

As for the first charge, that is, the one referred to the violation at the beginning of the due administrative process, the congressmen argued that " it is necessary to emphasize that the wording that the incongruity presents is originated in article 21 and that the author of that article is the National Government, represented in the debate of the Senate Committee VI by the Ministry of Transport, who after the articles of the project were coordinated, submitted a request for reform, as it appears in the transcript of June 4, fruit from which the contradiction is presented".

On the other hand, regarding the second charge, that is, the alleged violation of Articles 209 and 287, the congressmen did not accept the objection because, in their concept, there would not be a duplicity of functions between the current SIMIT and the future RUNT.

The Fiscal View, in turn, shares the president's objection to the fact that, in its concept, a violation of the principle of legality in the matter of administrative sanctions is presented. On the contrary, in terms of the violation of Articles 209 and 287, the Attorney General's Office considers that the presidential objection is unfounded for information systems. They are critical for different purposes, without the possibility of integrating the information they manage to increase the efficiency of their missions.

Thus, it is up to the Court to determine whether (i) the system of transit penalties established by the legislator violates Article 29 Superior; and (ii) whether the creation of the Single Register National Transit Traffic violates Articles 209 and 287 Superiors.

4.3. Case resolution by the Court.

4.3.1. Examination of the transit sanctions system established by the legislator in front of the article 29 Superior.

According to the President of the Republic, the provision introduces a system of points in front of the commission of traffic violations with inconsistencies and contradictions that hinder their effective implementation, contravening the principle of legality content in article 29 of the Political Constitution that requires the legislator to establish clear rules for the investigation and enforcement of sanctions with enforcement of the principle of legality.

The executive's reproach is to indicate that Article 17 provides for a system of discount points of the driving licence for traffic offences which is different from the points discount system set out in Article 21 of the the same bill; likewise, article 17 modifies article 93 of Law 769 of 2002, which is found in Chapter IV of Title III of the National Land Transit Code an allusion to the rules of conduct for public transport.

This generates, according to the President of the Republic, a normative contradiction that goes against the principle of procedural legality and allows arbitrary behavior of the legal operator, because it is not known if the system of sanctioning questioned is intended exclusively for public transport drivers or all drivers; and because that system is different from that set out in Article 21 of the draft law, as can be observed:

Moreover, according to the President of the Republic, the regulatory contradiction between Articles 17 and 21 of the bill can lead to the " collapsethe system, in particular, in terms of suspension and cancellation. of the driving license". It also alleges that Article 17 provides for a disproportionate system of penalties.

The Fiscal View, for its part, shares the presidential objection as to how, in its concept, Article 21 is rationally clearer and more precise than that set out in Article 17 objectionable, "which encompasses its proportionality. (principle of procedural favorability) ".

The Constitutional Court considers that the presidential objection is partially founded, for the following reasons.

Article 93 of the current National Transit and Transit Code provides the following:

" Article 93. Control of Public Service Drivers Infractions. The transit agencies shall send the statistics on the traffic offences of drivers to the public on a monthly basis and they shall in turn transmit the control programmes to be established for the purpose of the drivers.

Now, article 17 of the bill introduces a set of important modifications to that provision, such as the following:

(a) An obligation is established, in the head of the transit agencies, to report to the Integrated System of Fine and Penalties daily, the corresponding penalties imposed, for the purpose of making it compliant and keeping the Register available RUNT Transit only.

b) A system of points is established, consisting in that for each violation greater than certain minimum monthly legal salaries in force, the driver will receive as a penalty a certain number of points.

c) A sanctioning faculty is established in the head of the Superintendence of Ports and Transportation on transport companies that allow to drive people with suspended or canceled license.

(d) An obligation is established for public transport undertakings to establish programmes for the monitoring and control of infringements.

e) It is available that the database query named SIMIT, will be free.

I have already said that the subject of the penalty system for points is only one of the aspects covered by article 17 of the draft law.

On the other hand, the current article 131 of the National Transit and Transportation Code establishes a list of the fines to be canceled by the offending drivers, which, as they know, are calculated on current monthly legal minimum wages.

In this regard, article 21 of the bill,modifies the current sanctioning regime in the sense of establishing that "violators of transit rules will be punished with the imposition of fines or with fines and loss of points, according to the type of infraction so ... ". So, the penalties are regrouped by the legislator, with the following letters:

A. It will be sanctioned with a fine equivalent to four (4) daily minimum legal wages in force, the driver of a non-automotive or animal-traction vehicle that incurs any of the following violations:

(...)

B. Will be sanctioned with a fine equivalent to eight (8) current minimum legal wages in force and the loss of one (1) point, the driver and/or owner of an automotive vehicle that incurs any of the following violations:

(...)

C. It will be sanctioned with a fine equivalent to fifteen (15) minimum daily legal wages in force and the loss of two (2) points, the driver and/or owner of an automotive vehicle that incurs any of the following violations:

(...)

D. It will be sanctioned with fine equivalent to thirty (30) minimum daily legal wages in force and the loss of three (3) points, the driver and/or owner of an automotive vehicle that incurs any of the following violations:

(...)

E. It will be sanctioned with fine equivalent to forty-five (45) daily legal minimum wages in force and with the loss of six (6) points the driver and/or owner of an automotive vehicle that incurs any of the following violations:

Additionally, the following two paragraphs are set:

PARAGRAFO 1o. The driver who has not been sanctioned within a period of one (1) year, will be reset the missing points.

PARAGRAFO 2o. The traffic violations, the sanction of which is the imposition of fines described in other articles of Law 769 of 2002, will also give rise to the loss of 1, 2, 3 or 6 points, if the penalty penalty is in your order of 8, 15, 30 or 45 current daily legal minimum wages.

the Court finds that the following table, presented by the President of the Republic, corresponds to the following table: reality:

He wants to say that, as the Fiscal View holds, there are certain contradictions between two sanctioning systems that violate the guiding principles of the administrative penalty. In this regard, the Court in Case C- 564 , 2000, in relation to the principle of legality in sanctioning matters, considered the following:

"The principle of legality, in general terms, can be concretized in two respects: the first, that there is a prior law determining the conduct of the sanction and, the second, the precision that is used in the to determine the conduct or the object of reproach and the sanction to be imposed. This aspect is of great importance, because it seeks to cut to the maximum the discretion of the administration in the exercise of the sanctioning power that is its own. Accuracy that is preached not only of the description of the conduct, but of the sanction itself.

In the present case, two systems of different points cannot coexist in the same normative text, because this would leave the judge's discretion to apply.

In this order of ideas, the Court considers the presidential objection filed against Article 21 and the expressions to be founded "The following points system is established: For each infringement greater than or equal to 8 smlvd 2 points. For each infringement greater than or equal to 15 smlvd 6 points. For each violation greater than or equal to 30 smlvd 8 points", of article 17 of the bill, for violating the article 29 Superior, and consequently declare INEXEQUAL.

4.3.2. Review of whether the creation of the National Single Transit Registry violates items 209 and 287 Superiors.

The President of the Republic objected to the first paragraph of Article 17 of the Bill alleging violation of Articles 209 and 287 Superiors, for how much " the obligation laid down in the first paragraph of Article 17 to report by the transit agencies to the integrated system of fines and penalties SIMIT traffic violations so that it is in turn forward to the RUNT, violates both the autonomy of the territorial entities enshrined in article 287 of the Constitution and the principles of the administrative function enshrined in the article 209 constitutional" . In other words, there would be a duplication of functions, contrary to the principle of administrative efficiency.

The Congress of the Republic, for its part, does not share the presidential objection because " We consider that the conceptual and practical origin differs in an absolute way from the objectives pursued with the creation of the RUNT, so that they were conceived with clear and defined purposes that make them autonomous and This is the only way to ensure that the RUNT is not carried out in any way that it is the responsibility of the Transit Agencies where the system is involved. the offender, if he himself is not at peace and saved, and this procedure is achieved by connecting online and real time to all transit agencies, consolidating in a single database all violations of the country, which involves the considerable investment of public resources, for development, regulation disclosure, training, updating and administration of this".

The Constitutional Court considers that, in relation to the arguments put forward by the President of the Republic, a ruling of the Constitutional Court is an inhibitory ruling for the following reasons.

This Corporation has consistently held that it is beyond the control of the constitutional system to advance examinations aimed at determining the convenience of a given disposition. For example, in 2006 C-127 statement, I consider the following:

In that order of ideas, the Court has pointed out that a charge of unconstitutionality is apt to propitiate a trial on the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of rule only if the requirements for clarity, certainty, specificity, relevance, and sufficiency are met. Thus, this Corporation specified_[38] that, without incurring technical formalisms that would be contrary to the public and informal nature of the action of unconstitutionality, it is understood that a true charge of unconstitutionality, that is, a specific charge, when the same is supported by "clear, certain, specific, relevant and sufficient" reasons. This means that there is only room to activate the respective judgment, if the charge presented by the actor is (i) understandable and easy to understand (clear reasons), (ii) falls directly on the content of the provision (iii) it defines or shows the way in which the rule of law violates the Political Charter (specific reasons), (iv) uses arguments of a nature, and does not give rise to a legal proposition strictly constitutional and not reasons of legal, personal, doctrinal or order convenience (relevant reasons), and (v) contains all the elements of judicious and evidentiary judiciaries-which are essential to advance the judgment of unconstitutionality, so that it awakens at least a suspicion or a minimum doubt on the constitutionality of the impugned precept (sufficient reasons_[39]). (aggregate neglats).

In the specific case, the President of the Republic argues that it is inconvenient to preserve two computer systems, such as SIMIT and the RUNT, for this would imply incurring unnecessary costs. On the contrary, the Congress maintains that such a situation would not be present as it is two different operating systems, and that it is therefore relevant to preserve them both. As you can see, this is really about arguments of opportunity, related to aspects of a technical nature, whose control also escapes the competence of the constitutional judge. Hence, in this case, a substantive pronouncement cannot be brought forward.

H. EIGHTH OBJECTION.

1. Objections to unconstitutionality of paragraph 3 of Article 17.

Paragraph 3 of Article 17, which provides that it is for the entity responsible for SIMIT to issue the content certificates of peace and except for fines and infractions, which will have a cost of a legal minimum wage. journal, violates the principles of consistency and identity contained in the article 157 Superior.

In fact, this paragraph was included in the presentation for the second debate in the Senate, without having had any prior discussion in the Permanent Sex Commissions of each of the Chambers, nor in the Plenary of the House of Representatives.

Joined to the above, taking into account that the collection of the content of the certificate of peace and except is a tribute, in the sense that its collection is constituted in a consideration for a service provided, clearly in the legal provision the active subject, the taxable person, the operative events and the taxable bases, as well as the fee".

Likewise, the standard should have set a rate reasonably as "recovery of the costs of the services they provide to them or participation in the benefits provided to them", otherwise it is constituted in The article's transgression to the extent that the principle of equity in tax matters would be disaveated. In effect, the tariff must be adjusted and consult its specific nature, taking into account the cost that the service demanded by the individual means for the State.

Similarly, it is alleged that paragraph 3 of article 17 of the bill transgresses article 355 constitutional, which prohibits branches or organs of public authority from enacting aid or donations in favour of natural or legal persons in private law.

It is concluded by saying the following " According to the above, although not all transfers of resources or public goods in favor of individuals, without consideration, can be classified as aid or donation prohibited, since when the transfer of obeys to the fulfillment of constitutional purposes, is not incurred in violation of the precept of article 355, in the present case, the corresponding function to issue peace and without cost Some of the fines and infringements correspond to the RUNT within which is included the National Register of Infrastructures of Transit and, therefore, the exercise of the same function by the organ of character eminently private that manages the SIMIT-Colombian Federation of Municipalities-and that for such Effects will be charged by 1 SMLDV ($15383) does not address constitutional purposes".

2. Position taken by the Congress of the Republic.

The congressmen indicate that "this article was proposed in the debate given to it in the Senate Committee VI, as it appears in the transcript of the session of May 28."

Similarly, they point out that they welcome the objection presented, thus leaving the text proposed during the congressional debate. In the words of the legislators:

" On the other hand, we consider that effectively as stated in article 338 of the National Constitution and the objection, the fundamentals of the collection of such a fee should be established, as recovery of the costs of the services that present them with participation in the benefits that they provide to them according to the costs of the service.

In view of the above, and as we have already proposed in the previous objection, paragraph 3 of Article 17 of the bill will be excluded from the bill, with the following final text, as proposed above.

Article 17. Article 93 of Law 769 of 2002, will remain so:

Article 93. Control of Conductor Infrastructures. Transit agencies shall report on a daily basis the Integrated System of Multas and Sanctions for traffic violations for the violations imposed, in order to be in turn, according to and maintained available for the National Registry of Transit RUNT.

The following points system is set:

For each violation greater than or equal to 8 smlvd 2 points.

For each violation greater than or equal to 15 smlvd 6 points.

For each violation greater than or equal to 30 smlvd 8 points.

PARAGRAFO 1o. The Superintendence of Ports and Transportation will penalize with a fine equivalent to one hundred minimum monthly legal salaries in force (100 smlmv) to the public transport companies of the automotive, which have in exercise to drivers with suspended or cancelled driving license.

PARAGRAFO 2o. Auto-land public transport companies will be required to establish control and monitoring programs for drivers ' traffic violations to their service. This program will have to be sent monthly by the public transportation companies automotive to the Superintendence of Ports and Transportation. Companies that do not comply with the above will be sanctioned by that entity with a fine equivalent to one hundred current monthly legal minimum wages (100 smlmv).

In the above terms, we welcome the objection presented by the Executive, excluding paragraph 3 of Article 17. (grills and underscores added).

3. Concept of Fiscal View.

While the Tax View was pronounced about the general presidential objection raised against article 17 of the bill, the truth is that it did not do so in particular with paragraph 3 of the same provision. In fact, it is recalled that the following statement is stated in the presidential objections:

" Objections by unconstitutionality of paragraph 3 of Article 17. On the other hand, it is necessary to point out that in the recovery of the certificate of the content of the peace and except of a tribute, in the sense that its collection is constituted in a consideration for a service provided. Rates like the other levies are subject to the principle enshrined in Article 338 of the Constitution, whereby only Congress, Assemblies and Councils can imposing tax or parafiscal contributions, directly determining the elements of the tax or parafiscal charges. According to the foregoing, it has been clearly established in the legal provision the active subject, the taxable person, the operative events and the taxable bases, as well as the tariff.

Additionally, the standard referred to should have established such a rate reasonably as a recovery of the costs of the services that present them with the benefits they provide to them, otherwise they will be This is a violation of the article insofar as the principle of equity in tax matters would not be known. In effect, the tariff must be adjusted and consult its specific nature, taking into account the cost that the service demanded by the individual means for the State. "

4. Solution to the concrete case by the Constitutional Court

4.1. Text of the objected rules.

Article 17. Article 93 of Law 769 of 2002, will remain so:

(...)

PARAGRAFO 3o. The query to the Simit database will be free. The issue of certificates will have a cost of an existing daily legal minimum wage (1 smldv), which will be collected by the entity responsible for the Integrated System of Multas and Sanctions for Transit Infractions.

4.2. Presentation of the legal problem.

The President of the Republic raises several objections for unconstitutionality specifically against the third paragraph of article 17 of the bill.

First charge: The provision violates the principles of consistency and identity contained in Article 157 Superior, as this paragraph was included in the For the second debate in the Senate, without having had any prior discussion in the Permanent Sex Commissions of each of the Chambers, nor in the Plenary of the House of Representatives.

Second charge: The rule violates the principle of the legality of the tax, because "has been clearly established in the legal provision the active subject, the taxable person, the operative events and the taxable bases," as the rate".

Third charge: the constitutional provision of Article 355 , which prohibits branches or organs of public authority from enacting aid or donations in favour of natural or legal persons in private law.

The Congress of the Republic, for its part, welcomed the objection presented by the Executive, excluding from the text of the draft article 17 paragraph 3.

4.3. Resolution of the particular case.

The Court considers that, in the present case, there is also an inhibitory failure due to lack of object. Indeed, this Corporation has considered that "the insistence of the Chambers" is a procedural budget, in order for the Court to have jurisdiction in the analysis of the exequability of the object project. If that fault, in whole or in part, is to be understood as being fully or partially archived, according to Article 200 of Law 3a of 1992_[40].

Thus, the Court will declare itself inhibited to propose a substantive ruling in relation to paragraph 3 of Article 17 of Bill No. 012 of 2006 Chamber, 087 of 2007 Senate, " href="ley_0769_2002.html#1"> 769 2002 (National Transit Code) and other provisions are dictated", for current lack of object.

I. NINTH PRESIDENTIAL OBJECTION

1. Objections to the unconstitutionality of paragraph 2 of Article 24.

It is indicated that paragraph 2o of article 24 of the project, according to which "From the entry into force of this law and for a period of twelve (12) months, all drivers who have pending the payment of violations "transit will be eligible for the discount provided for in this article", is unconstitutional since the article 287 Superior has that the territorial entities enjoy autonomy for the management of their interests.

In this regard, it is noted that, as the accused paragrafo does, that those who have pending the payment of infractions may be subject to discounts, the article 287 Superior is not known, since the the administration and provision of the resources resulting from the traffic violations, as well as their collection, are the exclusive competence of the territorial entities, " and evil could the legislator enter to grant benefits on the same, in contravention of the autonomy that is preached on the resources of such entities".

It adds that Article 25 of the bill turns out to be "inconvenient and unconstitutional," as it presents a glaring contradiction with the provisions of Article 22. In fact, Article 22 states that if the contractor does not appear without a fair cause, the fine shall be increased to twice its value. However, Article 24 provides for the procedure to be followed when the contractor does not appear without fair cause and in this respect he points out that "If he is declared a contractor, he will be given one hundred percent (100%) of the value of the fine provided for in the Code".

By way of conclusion it is noted that "given the inconsistencies that are presented in the articles referred to, article 24 is in violation of article 29 of the Political Constitution. The procedure to be brought forward by the administration and the infringer in the event of the commission of a breach of transit presents ambiguities and contradictions in contravention of the principle of legality in the field of transport. sanctioning. The rule in commented does not protect the (sic) administered since there is no certainty of the procedure or prevent the possible commission of abuse by the authorities".

2. Position taken by the Congress of the Republic.

The Congress of the Republic rejects the presidential objection filed against paragraph 2 of Article 24, for the following reasons:

" 1. Territorial autonomy is not unlimited, but only extends within the framework that authorizes the Constitution and the law.

2. This framework allows the Congress to regulate territorial participation in national income.

3. Fines for traffic offences constitute a national income transferred to the local authorities.

4. The intervention of the Congress in the regulation of territorial income is excluded only when it is a question of goods actually incorporated in the budget of the territorial entity (revenues already collected), tax or non-tax income or arising from the exploitation of the monopolies of the territorial entities. It does not include the leased income.

5. The income transferred, within them the traffic fines, must be regulated by the general rule of competence of the Congress, which allows it to create, modify or suppress the tax revenue, without this implying any violation of the autonomy territorial.

On the other hand, as regards the argument put forward by the Executive, in the sense that article 24 of the bill is inconvenient and unconstitutional, since it presents a clear contradiction with the provisions of Article 22, in so far as the latter provides that if the contractor does not appear without fair cause the fine shall be increased to twice its value; whereas Article 24 provides for the procedure to be followed when the contractor does not appear without fair 'cause for proven cause and in this respect' if you are declared a contractor, you will be charged one hundred percent (100%) of the value of the fine provided for in the Code, " the congressmen are right to the President of the Republic. For these reasons, they propose to make the following modifications:

" Therefore, since the second paragraph is referring to discounts on the payment of charges for breaches prior to this law, the period of five days or the twenty days following the order of business would not apply. compare (as it is clear that these are very old comparisons). Consequently, it is proposed that the wording of Article 24 (2) or Article 24 of the Project be amended: 'they may benefit from the discount provided for in this Article' by the expression: ' they may benefit from the discount of 50% of the value of the fine and interest ", which would specify the amount of the discount and its application.

Based on the above, the Accidental Commission proposes that the articles objected to by the Executive, be as follows:

Article 22. Article 135 of Law 769 of 2002, will remain so:

Article 135. Procedure. Before the commission of a violation, the transit authority must follow the following procedure to impose the comparison:

Order to stop the running of the vehicle and extend to the driver the order of comparison in which it will order the offender to appear before the competent transit authority within five (5) working days. The driver will be given a copy of the order of comparison.

For the service in addition it will be mailed within three (3) working days following copy of the comparison to the owner of the vehicle, to the company to which it is linked and to the Superintendence of Ports and Transport for the competence.

The order of comparison must be signed by the driver, as long as this is possible. If the driver refuses to sign or present the licence, he or she shall sign a witness, which shall be fully identified with the number of his citizenship or passport card, address of address and telephone if he has it.

However, the competent authorities may contract the service of technical and technological means that permit evidence of the commission of violations or violations, the vehicle, the date, the place and the time. In such a case, it will be sent by mail within three (3) working days following the infringement and its supports to the owner who will be obliged to pay the fine. For the public service it will also be sent by mail within this same term copy of the comparison and its supports to the company to which it is linked and to the Superintendence of Ports and Transport for that of its competence.

The Ministry of Transport will determine the technical characteristics of the national single comparison form, as well as its delivery system. The driver shall indicate to the driver that he shall have the right to appoint a proxy if he so wishes and that the evidence he requests shall be issued or carried out at the hearing for which he is summoned. The comparison shall also provide the space to record the address of the defendant or the witness who has subscribed to it.

PARAGRAFO 1o. The transit authority shall deliver to the competent official or the entity that the transit authority has for its collection, within the next twelve (12) hours, the copy of the order of comparison, in the cause of misconduct.

When dealing with highway police officers, the delivery of this copy will be done through the route commander or the service director commander.

PARAGRAFO 2o. Transit agencies may enter into contracts or agreements with public or private entities in order to apply the principles of speed and efficiency in the collection of fines.

Article 24. Article 136 of Law 769 of 2002, will remain so:

Item 136. Reduction of the Multa. Once the order of comparison has been issued, if the defendant accepts the commission of the infringement, he may without need of another administrative action, cancel fifty percent (50%) of the value of the fine within five days following the order (a) by comparing, or may cancel, seventy-five percent (75%) of the value of the fine, if it pays within twenty days following the order of comparison. In the latter case, you will have to attend a course on transit rules in the Integral Care Center, where you will cancel twenty-five percent (25%) and the remaining fifty (50%) will pay the transit agency. If the breach is accepted, the infringement is not paid on the given opportunities, the counter must cancel (100%) the value of the fine plus its corresponding moratorical interests.

If the defendant rejects the commission of the infringement, he must appear before the official in public hearing so that he will decree the necessary tests that are requested and the ones of his office that he considers useful. At the same hearing, if possible, the evidence shall be conducted and the defendant shall be punished or acquitted. If he is declared a contractor, he shall be given a hundred percent (100%) of the value of the fine provided for in this Code.

If the defendant does not appear without fair cause within the following five (5) working days, the transit authority after 30 days of the alleged infringement will follow the process, understanding that it is linked to it, failing in public hearing and being notified in strates.

Free transit agencies will be able to enter into agreements for the collection of fines and will be able to establish agreements with the banks for this purpose. Payment of the fine and the appearance may be made anywhere in the country.

PARAGRAFO 1o. In places where traffic traffic inspections are in place, competent officials may impose the corresponding penalty on the offender at the place and time where the offence was committed. respecting the right of defence.

PARAGRAFO 2o. As of the entry into force of this law and for a period of twelve (12) months, all drivers who have pending payment of traffic violations will be eligible for the 50% (50%) of the value of the fine and interest.

In the terms above, we welcome the objections presented by the Executive

3. Concept of Fiscal View.

In the face of the charge of infringement of the principle of procedural legality by the non-provenance of the 25% discount for the payment of the fines within 20 days after the imposition of the comparison, having to pay the infringer a 25% of the value The Tax View considers that there was no infringement of the principle of procedural legality because there is no contradiction or confusion in the wording of the rule whose application prejudice the offender who decides to avail himself of the benefit for early payment.

In fact, the rule is clear to indicate that if the penalty decides to pay, either within the five (pay only 50% of the value of the fine) or twenty first days (cancels only 75%), the procedure consists in attending, within the same period of tax benefit, to a course on traffic rules in the Comprehensive Care Centre and to pay the centre 25% of the fine imposed; the balance must be cancelled (the other 25% or 50%, depending on the type of benefit to which you have decided to apply) the infringer), within the same period of discount, to the transit agency.   

Therefore, the Fiscal View asks the Constitutional Court to declare the presidential objections against Article 24 of Bill 87 of 2007 Senate unfounded, 12 of 2006.

In the same way, in relation to the charge of violation of the principle of territorial autonomy to administer its own resources, by means of paragraph 2 of the Bill, for having granted a period of twelve months, The Attorney General's Office observes that the law that has to correspond to the fact that drivers who have pending the payment of traffic violations will take advantage of the discount provided for in article 24 of the bill. there is such a violation, for the following reasons:

" This is because, in general, although it is true that the property and income, whether or not tax, are the exclusive property of the territorial entities, this property arises from the constitutional mandate (royalties, monopolies, General System of Participations) or legal, so territorial autonomy must be exercised in that context (Political Constitution. Article 87).

In the present case it was the law (Act 769 of 2007. Article 159. Paragraph 2o) which decided that the fines are the exclusive property of the transit agency where the infringement was committed. In that sense, the same law can decide the administration of that property.

Now, the purpose of this budget benefit is to avoid further losses for regional fiscus by prescribing the obligation to pay the fines, given the administrative impossibility that the agencies currently have. In order to make its collection more efficient and effective, this collection will be made more efficient and efficient, starting with the implementation of the reform of the National Land Transit Code.

other words, contrary to what could be thought of as a principle, the law is intended to safeguard the autonomy of the territorial authorities in terms of their resources, in the face of an imminent loss of income from fines due to the prescribing the relevant obligation, in addition to purging the portfolio to the transit agencies for greater efficiency in the collection in the future.

Therefore, the Judicial Corporation will be asked to declare unfounded the presidential objections against paragraph 2 of Bill 87 of 2007, Senate; 12 of 2006, House.

passage omitted] The Attorney General's Office is calling the Court's attention to the following situation: "Congress of the Republic, Motuo Proprio, during the process of presidential objections against the 2o of Article 24 of Bill 87 of 2007, Senate; 12 of 2006 Chamber, made it a substitution to it in order to clarify its contents. This may have two interpretations: One, inhibitory for not being the clarifying interpretation part of the present objection process; another, analyzing the reason for its provenance and content within this process. The latter leads to declaring the exequability of the substitution mentioned, because it is done within the competence of the legislature to interpret the laws in the frame of a strict unity of matter".

In particular, he explains that, when reviewing the presidential objections against paragraph 2 of Article 24 of the Bill and following the line of revision of charges for contradictions that violate due process, the Congress of the Republic ' found a contradiction in such a rule that was not the object of the Executive's questioning, " to which, on its own initiative, decided to make a clarification to the same in relation to the Article 24 of the Draft Law, by replacing the normative expression: "(...) will be eligible for the discount provided for in this article", by: "may qualify for the discount of 50% of the value of the fine and of the interests". (original grills and underscores).

In this situation, the Public Ministry presents two approaches to the Constitutional Court. The first, to ask that it be declared inhibited to know of the unilateral proceeding of the Congress of the Republic to clarify the norm, because this is a matter foreign to the process of objections within which the clarification has been made, given that the President of the Republic did not present any charge.

The second, that the Corporation assumes the jurisdiction to know of the indicated clarification and the declaration to be exequable. This, because the legislator knew of the contradiction indicated as a consequence of the study of presidential objections against article 24 of the Bill, expressly including those formulated against his paragraph 2o. That is to say, the contradiction referred to was found and the legislative correction of the same was carried out as a consequence of an express revision of that paragraph to address the presidential objections formulated against the same one for different reasons to the incongruity detected by the Congress of the Republic.

Accepting that there is an express and direct causal relationship for the Congress of the Republic to return to the contents of the paragraph of Article 24 of the Bill, which was the presidential objection against it for reasons different from the contradiction found by the legislator, "must be examined if that cause allows the legislator to exercise his interpretative competence in that procedural state of the procedure of Bill 87 of 2007 Senate, 12 of 2006, Camera. "

Thus, the Fiscal View considers that, "the present case, the Congress of the Republic was competent to make the indicated correction, which arises from the causal link of the revision of paragraph 2 of Article 24 as a result of the presidential objection against it. This, because the period of objections is constituted by a prolongation of the legislative procedure circumscribed only to the thematic scope of the presidential objections. This scope covers both the objection itself, and what the Congress of the Republic considers it should do to adjust the regulatory aside objected to the constitutional context. It is a matter of economics and legislative effectiveness that, in this case, was exercised by the Legislative Branch from its competence to interpret the laws, respecting unity of matter and the intention of the legislator, without the clarified paragraph, or article 24 containing it, nor the bill as a whole would suffer modification (Political Constitution, articles 158, 209)" (grills and underscores originals).

Thus, according to the Attorney General's Office, instead of being unconstitutional, it is noted that the clarification given to paragraph 2 of Article 24 of the Draft Law is limited to the principles of democracy and preservation. of the right as regards procedural lawfulness for the partial budgetary benefit to meet the expected objectives (a final cash flow and an increase in the administrative efficiency and efficiency of the collection by way of fines for violation of land transit rules).

Therefore, the Constitutional Court will be asked to " declareinterpretation made by the Congress of the Republic at paragraph 2 of Article 24 of Bill 87 of Law 87 to be adjusted to the higher order 2007, Senate; 12 of 2006, Camara, by replacing the normative expression: "(...) will be eligible for the discount provided for in this article", by: " will be eligible for the 50% discount on the value of the fine and interest", with this article remaining in the following terms:

"Article 24. Article 136 of Law 769 of 2002, will remain so:

Article 136. Reduction of the Multa. Once the order of comparison has been issued, if the defendant accepts the commission of the infringement, he may need no other administrative action, cancel fifty percent (50%) of the value of the fine within the five days following the order of comparison, likewise, or you may cancel the seventy five (75%) of the value of the fine, if you pay within twenty days following the order of comparison, in these cases you must necessarily attend a course on transit rules at the Integral Care Centre, where 25% will be cancelled and the surplus will be paid to the transit body. If the breach is accepted, the infringement is not paid on the given opportunities, the defendant must cancel (100%) the value of the fine plus their corresponding moratorical interests.

If the defendant rejects the commission of the infringement, the defendant must appear before the official in public hearing so that he will decree the necessary tests that are requested and the ones of his office that he considers useful. If the contraventor does not appear without fair cause within the following five (5) working days, the transit authority after 30 days of the alleged infringement shall follow the process, understanding that it is linked to it, failing in public hearing and being notified in strates.

In the same hearing, if possible, the tests will be performed and the accused will be punished or acquitted. If he is declared a contractor, he shall be given a hundred percent (100%) of the value of the fine provided for in the code.

Free transit agencies will be able to enter into agreements for the collection of fines and will be able to establish agreements with the banks for this purpose. Payment of the fine and the appearance may be made anywhere in the country.

PARAGRAFO 1o. In places where traffic inspections are in place, competent officials may impose on the infringer the appropriate sanction at the place and time where the violation has been committed in accordance with the law.

PARAGRAFO 2o. As of the entry into force of this law and for a period of twelve (12) months, all drivers who have pending the payment of traffic violations will be eligible for the 50% discount on the value of the fine and interest." (underlined and bold out of text).

4. Solution to the concrete case by the Constitutional Court

4.1. Text of the objected rule.

CHAPTER IV

Take Action in Case of Compare Imposition

Article 24. Article 136 of Law 769 of 2002, will remain so.

Article 136. Reducing the Multa. Once the order of comparison has been issued, if the defendant accepts the commission of the infringement, he may need no other administrative action, to cancel fifty percent (50%) of the value of the fine within the following five days the order of comparison, likewise, or may cancel the seventy-five (75%) of the value of the fine, if it pays within the twenty days following the order of comparison, in these cases it must necessarily attend to a course on norms of transit through the Integral Care Center, where 25% will be cancelled and the surplus will be paid to the transit. If the breach is accepted, the infringement is not paid on the given opportunities, the defendant must cancel (100%) the value of the fine plus its corresponding moratorical interests.

If the defendant rejects the commission of the infringement, the defendant must appear before the official in public hearing so that he will decree the necessary tests that are requested and the ones of his office that he considers useful. If the contraventor does not appear without fair cause within the following five (5) working days, the transit authority after 30 days of the alleged infringement shall follow the process, understanding that it is linked to it, failing in public hearing and being notified in strates.

In the same hearing, if possible, the evidence shall be conducted and the defendant shall be punished or acquitted. If he is declared a contractor, he shall be given one hundred per cent (100%) of the value of the fine provided for in the Code.

Free transit agencies will be able to enter into agreements for the collection of fines and will be able to establish agreements with the banks for this purpose. Payment of the fine and the appearance may be made anywhere in the country.

PARAGRAFO 1o. In places where there are road traffic inspections, competent officials may impose on the offender the appropriate sanction at the place and time where the violation has been committed while respecting the right of defence.

PARAGRAFO 2o. As of the entry into force of this law and for a period of twelve (12) months, all drivers who have pending payment of traffic violations will be eligible for the discount provided at this time. Article.

4.2. Approach to the legal problem.

The President of the Republic presents the following charges of unconstitutionality against paragraph 2 of Article 24 of the bill.

First charge: The objectionable provision, by allowing drivers who have pending payment of traffic violations to qualify for a certain discount, is not aware of the article 287 Higher (autonomy of territorial entities), as the product of fines is owned by those. In other words, given that " theand disposal of the resources resulting from such violations, as well as their collection, is the exclusive competence of the territorial entities, the legislator may not be able to grant benefits on the same, in contravention of the autonomy that is preached on the resources of such entities".

Second charge: The object rule violates Article 29 Superior, as to the procedure to be brought forward by the administration and the offender in case of the The Commission is not in a position to be able to do so, but it does not have to be taken into account.

As for the first of the charges, the Congress of the Republic insists on the conformity of paragraph 2 of Article 24 of the draft law with the Constitution, for, (i) territorial autonomy is not unlimited; (ii) the Constitution empowers the Congress to regulate the territorial participation in national income; (iii) fines for traffic violations, constitute a national income ceded to the territorial authorities; and (iv) the In the case of the European Parliament, the Commission has been asked to make a statement. of goods actually incorporated in the budget of the territorial entity (revenues already collected), of tax or non-tax income or arising from the exploitation of monopolies of the territorial entities. It does not include the leased income.

In relation to the second of the charges, that is, the violation of the principle of legality, the Congress considered that the Executive was right, and that for greater clarity it was necessary to modify also some Article 22 of the draft law. In the words of the congressmen:

Based on the above, the Accidental Commission proposes that the articles objected to by the Executive, be as follows:

Article 22. Article 135 of Law 769 of 2002, will remain so:

Article 135. Procedure. Before the commission of a violation, the transit authority must follow the following procedure to impose the comparison:

Order to stop the running of the vehicle and extend to the driver the order of comparison in which it will order the offender to appear before the competent transit authority within five (5) working days. The driver will be given a copy of the order of comparison.

For the service in addition it will be mailed within three (3) working days following copy of the comparison to the owner of the vehicle, to the company to which it is linked and to the Superintendence of Ports and Transport for the competence.

The order of comparison must be signed by the driver, as long as this is possible. If the driver refuses to sign or present the licence, he or she shall sign a witness, which shall be fully identified with the number of his citizenship or passport card, address of address and telephone if he has it.

However, the competent authorities may contract the service of technical and technological means that permit evidence of the commission of violations or violations, the vehicle, the date, the place and the time. In such a case, it will be sent by mail within three (3) working days following the infringement and its supports to the owner who will be obliged to pay the fine. For the public service it will also be sent by mail within this same term copy of the comparison and its supports to the company to which it is linked and to the Superintendence of Ports and Transport for that of its competence.

The Ministry of Transport will determine the technical characteristics of the national single comparison form, as well as its delivery system. The driver shall indicate to the driver that he shall have the right to appoint a proxy if he so wishes and that the evidence he requests shall be issued or carried out at the hearing for which he is summoned. The comparison shall also provide the space to record the address of the defendant or the witness who has subscribed to it.

PARAGRAFO 1o. The transit authority shall deliver to the competent official or the entity that the transit authority has for its collection, within the next twelve (12) hours, the copy of the order of comparison, in the cause of misconduct.

When dealing with highway police officers, the delivery of this copy will be done through the route commander or the service director commander.

PARAGRAFO 2o. Transit agencies may enter into contracts or agreements with public or private entities in order to apply the principles of speed and efficiency in the collection of fines.

Article 24. Article 136 of Law 769 of 2002, will remain so:

Item 136. Reduction of the Multa. Once the order of comparison has been issued, if the defendant accepts the commission of the infringement, he may without need of another administrative action, cancel fifty percent (50%) of the value of the fine within five days following the order (a) by comparing, or may cancel, seventy-five percent (75%) of the value of the fine, if it pays within twenty days following the order of comparison. In the latter case, you will have to attend a course on transit rules in the Integral Care Center, where you will cancel twenty-five percent (25%) and the remaining fifty (50%) will pay the transit agency. If the breach is accepted, the infringement is not paid on the given opportunities, the counter must cancel (100%) the value of the fine plus its corresponding moratorical interests.

If the defendant rejects the commission of the infringement, he must appear before the official in public hearing so that he will decree the necessary tests that are requested and the ones of his office that he considers useful. At the same hearing, if possible, the evidence shall be conducted and the defendant shall be punished or acquitted. If he is declared a contractor, he shall be given a hundred percent (100%) of the value of the fine provided for in this Code.

If the defendant does not appear without fair cause within the following five (5) working days, the transit authority after 30 days of the alleged infringement will follow the process, understanding that it is linked to it, failing in public hearing and being notified in strates.

Free transit agencies will be able to enter into agreements for the collection of fines and will be able to establish agreements with the banks for this purpose. Payment of the fine and the appearance may be made anywhere in the country.

PARAGRAFO 1o. In places where traffic traffic inspections are in place, competent officials may impose the corresponding penalty on the offender at the place and time where the offence was committed. respecting the right of defence.

PARAGRAFO 2o. As of the entry into force of this law and for a period of twelve (12) months, all drivers who have pending the payment of traffic violations, will be eligible for the discount of the 50% (50%) of the value of the fine and interest.

In the above terms, we welcome the objections raised by the Executive. (aggregate grills).

Thus, the Court should determine whether (i) the legislator violated the principle of autonomy of the territorial entities by having the offending drivers eligible for certain discounts; and (ii) whether to carry out an examination of In the case of the alleged violation of the principle of legality, the Congress of the Republic accepted the presidential objection and proposed the adoption of a new text by overcoming it.

4.3. Resolution of the particular case.

4.3.1. Scope of the autonomy of the territorial entities.

Over the years, the Court has consolidated clear jurisprudential lines in the sense that the 1991 Political Charter provides for a form of State that is constructed from the unitary principle, but which guarantees, at the same time, a autonomy scope for its territorial entities_[41]. Within this framework, the distribution of powers between the Nation and the territorial entities is something that the higher order has entrusted to the legislator, for which a set of minimum rules aimed at securing a articulation between protection due to territorial autonomy and the unitary principle, rules that sometimes give primacy to the central level, at the same time that in others they promote the autonomous management of the territorial entities_[42].

In this order of ideas, the contents of the principles of unity and autonomy, which are mutually limited, are harmonized. In this regard, the Constitutional Court in judgment C- 535 of 1996 considered that autonomy should be understood as the capacity of the territorial entities to manage their own interests, within the The limits of the Constitution and the law, which means that while, on the one hand, the local interests are affirmed, it is recognized, on the other hand, " the supremacy of a higher order, with which the autonomy of the entities territorial is not configured as sovereign power but is explained in a unitary context "_[43] In that same providence it was pointed out that " on the one hand, the principle of autonomy must be developed within the limits of the Constitution and the law, thereby recognizing the position of superiority of the unitary State, and on the other hand, the unitary principle must respect an essential space of autonomy, the limit of which is the area in which the latter is developed "_[44].

Later, the Court in Case C-1258 of 2001 brought forward some clarifications regarding the role that the legislator has to play in the configuration of the areas of regional autonomy, indicating which is integrated by " the set of rights, privileges and powers recognized in the Political Charter for the territorial entities and their authorities, for the efficient fulfilment of the functions and the provision of services to their charge. "_[45] As for the maximum limit, the Court stated that it has a border at that end that upon being overcome breaks with the idea of the unitary state._[46].

More recently, in C- 931 2006, this Corporation referred to the content of the principle of autonomy for territorial entities, in the following terms:

In that scheme, for the distribution of powers between the Nation and the territorial entities, the legislator should take into account that the essential content of autonomy is focused on the possibility of managing the interests (C. Article 287), one of whose most important manifestations is the right to act through own organs in the administration and government of regional or local issues. This right, contained in article 287 Superior, is part of the essential core of autonomy, unavailable by the legislator, and is complemented by the forecasts of the Articles 300-7 and 313-6 of the Constitution, according to which it is for the territorial entities to determine the structure of their respective administrations, creating the dependencies that are estimated necessary and fixing the correlative functions to them.

" However, it is clear that, in order to preserve the national interest and the unitary principle, it is up to the legislator to establish the basic conditions for autonomy and to define, respecting the principle of subsidiarity, the powers of the national order which must be developed in accordance with the principle of coordination, which presupposes uniform rules and guidelines of action which, without giving out the scope of territorial autonomy, allow for harmonization of functions.

Thus, the principle of autonomy of territorial entities is not absolute, and must always be harmonized with the constitutional form of state.

4.3.2. Legal nature of the fines, their property and regulation

The fines imposed because of traffic violations, are revenues transferred from the Nation to the territorial entities, which do not enjoy the municipal reserve or departmental of determination and predictable administration of the revenues. Tax. This was confirmed by the Constitutional Court stating that:

" The external or exogenous source of the income would be the one that comes from the Nation for transfer as the fiscal position, the stakes, the royalty and compensation rights, the income divested, the resources transferred for co-financing and, in sum, the other mechanisms which the legislator has for these purposes. Of course, on these incomes the law has a greater degree of interference, with the natural but justified affectation of the fiscal autonomy of the territorial entities.

The constitutional faculty of intervention of the legislator in determining the use and administration of the revenues transferred to the territorial entities in the field of transit was endorsed by the Court in judgment C- 925 2006, when he noted:

" In relation to the first aspect, the duality of tax powers provided by the Political Charter allows two different sources of financing to be preferred. The first, exogenous character, is made up of the transfer or cession of the national income and the participation in resources derived from royalties or compensations.  With regard to funds of this nature, the constitutional case-law has reiterated that they " admit a broad intervention of the legislator since, ultimately, these are national sources of financing. In particular, the Court has pointed out that nothing obsta for the law to intervene in the definition of the areas to which the national resources transferred or transferred to the territorial entities must be destined, provided that the destination is provided and respects the constitutional priorities relating to each of the different exogenous sources of funding. "_[47] .  

The second source of financing for territorial entities is that of an endogenous character, a category that corresponds to the term "own resources" used by the Constitution when defining the scope of fiscal autonomy. of the regions. In this regard, the Court has considered that it is the own resources of the territorial entities " that originate and produce within the respective jurisdiction and under its internal political decisions. As a result, they are own resources, both those resulting from the exploitation of the goods that are their exclusive property, and the tax revenues that arise thanks to tax sources-taxes, taxes and contributions-of their own. _[48]

Similarly, it should be noted that the Court in judgment C- 385 of 2003 considered that the resources coming from the payment of traffic fines had been transferred by the Nation to the territorial entities, for the purposes of strengthen them:

" According to the National Land Transit Code, issued by Law 769 of 2002, the Nation to strengthen the municipalities ' income allocates money from fines for the In the case of the Commission, the Commission has taken the necessary measures to ensure that the conditions for the application of the provisions of the Treaty are not met in the context of the common market. to register the name and identity of those who are in breach of the regulatory rules of the The Commission is also concerned about the amount of the fines and other penalties imposed on them, which, without a doubt, allows for greater control by the authorities and facilitates the recovery of sums due for this concept in any part of the territory.

Thus, in the case of an exogenous source of funding, these resources "support a broad intervention of the legislator, since they are ultimately national sources of finance. In particular, the Court has pointed out that nothing obsta for the law to intervene in the definition of the areas to which the national resources transferred or transferred to the territorial entities must be destined, provided that the destination is provided and respects the constitutional priorities for each of the different exogenous sources of funding. "_[49]

4.3.3. Examination of the specific case.

In the specific case, the legislator stated that "...] [... From the entry into force of this law and for a period of twelve (12) months, all drivers who have pending the payment of traffic violations will be able to benefit from the discount provided for in this Article", that is to say, subject to a reduction in the payment of the fines for traffic offences.

So that, if the order of comparison is taken, the defendant accepts the commission of the infringement, he may cancel fifty percent (50%) of the value of the fine within five days of the order of comparison, or may cancel seventy-five percent (75%) of the value of that, if it pays within twenty days of the order of comparison. In the latter case, you will have to attend a course on transit rules in the Integral Care Center, where you will cancel twenty-five percent (25%) and the remaining fifty (50%) will pay the transit agency. If the breach is accepted, the infringement is not paid on the given opportunities, the counter must cancel (100%) the value of the fine plus its corresponding moratorical interests.

Well, this intervention by the national legislator in an exogenous source of financing for territorial entities, as are the resources from the payment of traffic fines, is in line with the Constitution. In fact, it is sufficient to point out that the rule seeks a constitutionally permissible objective, as is to improve the collection of the payment by way of traffic fines, by forecasting a set of economic stimuli to the infringer, related with the speed with which you cancel your penalties.

In this order of ideas, the Court will declare unfounded the presidential objection filed against paragraph 2 of Article 24 of the bill.

4.4.4. Provenance of an inhibitory failure in relation to the alleged violation of the principle of legality.

The President of the Republic argues that the rule objects violate Article 29 Superior, as to the procedure to be brought forward by the administration and the infringer in case of the commission of a violation of transit, presents ambiguities and contradictions, contravening the principle of legality in sanctioning matter.

The Congress considered that the Executive was right, and that for the sake of clarity some aspects of Article 22 of the bill needed to be modified equally.

In this case, the Court considers that an inhibitory ruling is proceeding, since the Congress finally accepted the presidential objection. Likewise, he believes that having adjusted a new text also does not allow him to assume competence because the objections did not recuse on them. Thus, in a very similar case, the Court in Case C- 923 of 2000 considered the following:

" First of all, it is necessary to take into account that the Congress of the Republic welcomed the presidential objections regarding Articles 8 and 9 of the draft in reference, and decided to adapt the wording of Articles 6, 7 and 11 "to adjust them to the Charter." Thus, the legislature only expressed its disagreement with regard to the objections raised against Articles 2, 3, 4 and 10 of the draft. Consequently, the constitutionality study by this Corporation should be restricted only to those fees.

regard to the new texts approved by the Congress for the purpose of the aforementioned adequacy, the Court of Competition lacks the jurisdiction to examine its constitutionality, since the objections did not recite on them but on the previous. (aggregate blackls).

J. 10TH PRESIDENTIAL OBJECTION

1. Objections to unconstitutionality of Article 27

As regards Article 27 of the bill, according to which the Governors and Mayors are empowered " toamnesties to traffic offenders and to adopt measures for the consolidation of the portfolio of infractions that has not been the subject of notification of the order of payment by way of executive and does not exceed five (5) years of the events that gave rise to the performance", vulnera the number 3o of the article 287 Higher, " for the same reasons that were exposed in the previous point".

Similarly, it is argued that the contested provision infringes Article 13 Superior, to the extent that amnesties, understood as facilities for those in arrears to cancel taxes, they violate the principle of equality. In this sense, "the problems of efficiency of the state apparatus, cannot be resolved to the bounds of the tax equality and the abdication of the rule of law".

2. Stance taken by the Congress of the Republic

The Congress considers that Article 27 of the bill does not violate the principle of autonomy for territorial entities, nor does it violate the principle of equality.

In terms of the autonomy of the territorial entities, the congressmen point out that "must not lose sight of the fact that the standard demanded leaves the authority of the territorial entities to reduce the amount of the sanctions and simplify the procedures, depending on the nature of the taxes and the proportionality of the penalties in relation to the amount of the taxes. Thus, it is not an unlimited interference of the legislator, but a reasonable interference, oriented to the promotion of equitable tax procedures for the managed and effective for the Administration and susceptible of be adapted to the connotations of the tax matter in charge of those entities".

In turn, in terms of the alleged violation of the principle of equality, the parliamentarians argue that " Articledoes not declare amnesty directly, but authorizes mayors and governors to do so. Similarly, it is necessary to emphasize that neither the authorization itself nor the sanitation are questioned. It is the amnesties that the government has put into question, so they will be the object of study".

In short, it is argued that (i) decree amnesties if it is constitutionally authorized; and (ii) in the specific case, the measure exceeds a reasonableness test.

3. Concept of Fiscal View

The Attorney General's Office asks the Constitutional Court to state the objections against Article 27 of Bill 87 of 2007, Senate; 12 of 2006, House, for being unreasonable and disproportionate within the context of the same Project. This is a violation of the principle of budgetary autonomy in relation to the ownership and administration of the resources of the territorial entities; the administrative morality, as far as the responsibility of the servers is concerned. The Commission has also taken the necessary measures to ensure that the rules of procedure are not complied with. of a fair order and the legitimacy of the institutions, in relation to those who have paid their obligations for violations of the rules of transit.

Ensures that the measure has two purposes. One, to write off the debts for payment of fines (forgiveness and forgetting those obligations); and another, to make the liabilities (disciplinary, fiscal and criminal) disappear from the public servants who in recent years have not been diligent. to make the corresponding charges.

The above, from the point of view of the territorial public finances, is unreasonable and disproportionate in the context of Bill 87 of 2007, Senate; 12 of 2006, House, if you have to have in article 24 of it a In the case of all the violators of the transit rules who are in arrears to pay their fines, consistent with the reduction of 50% of the same and their interest as already analyzed extensively in the apapite 9 of this Fiscal Concept of Constitutionality.

Finally, what would end up happening, according to the Attorney General's Office, is that, with the perverse mood of releasing the public servants negligent in the collection of the fines, and also with the intent of payment of favors. The policy of the European Parliament, the Commission and the Member States of the European Parliament, the Commission and the European Parliament, the European Parliament and the European Parliament. " That, without taking into account the disincentive that this would represent for all the offenders who have paid their fines, either voluntarily or as a result of the coercive recovery process, which goes against the validity of an order just and the same legitimacy of the institutional order. "

4. Solution to the concrete case by the Constitutional Court

4.1. Text of the objected rule

Article 27. Law 769 , 2002, will have the following transitional article:

Transient article. Facultate the municipal and district governors and mayors until December 31, 2009, to decree amnesties to traffic offenders and to adopt measures for the consolidation of portfolio of infractions that have not been subject to notification of the payment order by way of business and not exceed five (5) years of the events that gave rise to the action.

4.2. Presenting the legal problem

The President of the Republic objected to the unconstitutional article 27 of the bill, raising the following charges of unconstitutionality:

First charge: The amnesty decreed by the legislator does not know Article 13 Superior, because "while it is true that the fines are not considered a tribute as such, the argument put forward by the Court Constitutional is perfectly applicable to your case". It is worth clarifying that in the text of the presidential objection, the following case-law extract is transcribed as sustenance:

The reallocation of the tax burden paradoxically favors those who have incurred arrears and is accentuated in real terms with respect to those who observed the law. The efficiency problems of the state apparatus cannot be resolved at the expense of the tax equality and the abdication of the rule of law. The authorities that are instituted to ensure the fulfillment of the social duties of the individuals are compelled by the law to resign from this function, not negotiable, in order to overcome the shortcomings that they exhibit in the field of raised, which were to be resolved through other different means " (Constitutional Court, C-511 , 1996).

Second charge: The provision violates the principle of autonomy of the territorial entities, since the fines of property of those entities, the legislator could not decree a tax amnesty.

Congress of the Republic, for its part, insisted on the adoption of the contested provision. The Fiscal View, in turn, shares the content of presidential objections.

Thus, it is up to the Court to determine whether (i) the President of the Republic really raised a true charge of unconstitutionality for violation of the principle of equality; and (ii) a legal provision whereby the Court of Justice the municipal and district governors and mayors until 31 December 2009, to decree amnesties to traffic offenders and to adopt measures for the consolidation of the portfolio of infractions that have not been the subject of notification of the payment orders by way of business and not exceed five (5) years of the facts which they gave The principle of autonomy of the territorial entities is violated.

4.3. Resolution of the particular case

4.3.1. Absence of charge for violation of the principle of equality

relation to the alleged violation of the principle of equality, the Court considers that the President of the Republic did not really structure a charge of unconstitutionality. Indeed, in the letter of objections it is stated that "while it is true that the fines are not considered a tribute as such, the argument put forward by the Constitutional Court is perfectly applicable to their case". The following case-law extract is then transcribed:

The reallocation of the tax burden paradoxically favors those who have incurred arrears and is accentuated in real terms with respect to those who observed the law. The efficiency problems of the state apparatus cannot be resolved at the expense of the tax equality and the abdication of the rule of law. The authorities that are instituted to ensure the fulfillment of the social duties of the individuals, are compelled by the law to resign from this function, not negotiable, in order to overcome the shortcomings that they exhibit in the matter of raised, which were to be resolved through other different means " (Constitutional Court, C-511 , 1996).

As can be noted, the reasons for empowering Governors and Mayors to decree "amnesties to traffic offenders and to adopt measures for the consolidation of a portfolio of non-compliant has been the subject of notification of the order of payment by executive and does not exceed five (5) years of the events that gave rise to the action" do not know the principle of equality. In fact, there is no element of comparison that allows an equal test to be carried out.

In this order of ideas, the Court will declare itself inhibited to make a substantive ruling for absence of office.

4.3.2. Faculty of Congress to decree amnesties on traffic fines

The President of the Republic alleges that the provision violates the principle of autonomy of the territorial entities, because the property fines of those entities, the legislator could not decree a tax amnesty.

Congress of the Republic opposes the presidential objection because it considers that the legislator was constitutionally authorized to have access to the traffic fines.

The Court considers that the objection is not called to prosper for the following reasons.

First, the simple reading of the standard objects to the fact that the Congress of the Republic is not enacting any tax amnesty in favor of the debtors of the transit comparisons. In fact, it is only an authorization granted to Governors and Mayors for them to be the ones who, acting within their margin, decide to implement the measure, in order to clean up the portfolio.

Second, such authorization is limited to a specific group of debtors: those who have not been the subject of notification of the payment order by executive. Similarly, a five-year time limit is imposed from the commission of events.

Thus, it is not understood how the contested provision affects the autonomy of the territorial entities, as well as the management of their resources, when the truth is that it will be their own authorities that decide the convenience of apply the measure.

Coupled with the above, it is recalled that an exogenous source of funding is being given to the territorial entities and that, therefore, the legislator's margin of intervention is very broad, in the terms of the Court's constant case law.

In this order of ideas, the Court will declare unfounded the presidential objection filed against the transitional article of article 27 of the bill, for the charge of violation of the principle of autonomy of the territorial entities.

VIII. DECISION

On the merits of the above, the Full Court of the Constitutional Court, administering justice, on behalf of the people and by mandate of the Constitution

RESOLVES:

First. Declare inhibited to provide a background failure in relation to paragraph 3 of Article 3o of the Bill No. 012, 2006 Chamber, 087 of 2007 Senate, "For which the Law 769 of 2002 (National Transit Code) is reformed and other provisions are dictated", for current lack of object.

Second. Declare unfounded the presidential objection filed against paragraph 3 of Article 4 of the Bill No. 012, 2006 Chamber, 087 of 2007 Senate, "By which reform the Law 769 of 2002 (National Transit Code) and other provisions are dictated", and consequently, is declared EXEQUABLE.

Third. Declare unfounded the presidential objection filed against article 5 (4) and article 13 (1) of the bill No. 012, 2006 Chamber, 087 of 2007 Senate, "By which reform the Law 769 of 2002 (National Transit Code) and other provisions are dictated", and consequently, is declared EXEQUABLE.

Fourth. Declare unfounded the presidential objection filed against paragraph 2 of article 8 of the bill. No 012, 2006 Chamber, 087 of 2007 Senate, "By which reform the Law 769 of 2002 (National Transit Code) and other provisions are dictated", and consequently, is declared EXEQUABLE.

Fifth. Declare Inhibited to provide a background failure in relation to the "new" expression in Article 11 of the No. 012, 2006 Chamber, 087 of 2007 Senate, "For which the Law 769 of 2002 (National Transit Code) is reformed and other provisions are dictated", for current lack of object.

Sixth. Declare inhibited to provide a background failure in relation to the paragraph of article 15 of the bill No. 012, 2006 Chamber, 087 of 2007 Senate, "For which the Law 769 of 2002 (National Transit Code) is reformed and other provisions are dictated", for current lack of object.

Seventh. Declare founded the presidential objection filed against Article 21 and the expressions "The following points system is established: For each violation greater than or equal to 8 smlvd 2 points. For each infringement greater than or equal to 15 smlvd 6 points. For each violation greater than or equal to 30 smlvd 8 points", of article 17 of the bill, for violating the article 29 Superior, and consequently declare INEXEQUAL.

Eighth. Declare inhibited to provide a background failure in relation to paragraph 3 of Article 17 of the Bill No. 012, 2006 Chamber, 087 of 2007 Senate, "For which the Law 769 of 2002 (National Transit Code) is reformed and other provisions are dictated", for current lack of object.

Ninth. Declare unfounded the presidential objection filed against paragraph 2 of Article 24 of the bill No. 012, 2006 Chamber, 087 of 2007 Senate, "By which reform the Law 769 of 2002 (National Transit Code) and other provisions are dictated", and consequently, is declared EXEQUABLE.

Tenth. Declare inhibited to propose a substantive failure, on the basis of violation of the principle of legality, in relation to article 24 of the bill No. 012, 2006 Chamber, 087 of 2007 Senate, "By which reform the Law 769 of 2002 (National Transit Code) and other provisions are dictated".

Eleventh. Declare inhibited to propose a substantive ruling, for the alleged charge of violation of the principle of equality, in relation to the transitional article of article 27 of the bill No. 012, 2006 Chamber, 087 of 2007 Senate, "By which reform the Law 769 of 2002 (National Transit Code) and other provisions are dictated", for inept objection.

12th. Declare unfounded the presidential objection filed against the transitional article of article 27 of the bill No. 012, 2006 Chamber, 087 of 2007 Senate, "By which reform the Law 769 of 2002 (National Transit Code) and other provisions are dictated", for the charge of violation at the beginning of autonomy of the territorial entities.

Tenth third. Order that this bill be RETURNED to the Congress of the Republic, in order for it to do so and once the above has been fulfilled, it will be returned to the Court to verify its compliance, in accordance with Article 167 of the Political Constitution, in accordance with the motivating part of this failure.

Copy, communicate, notify, insert into the Constitutional Court Gazette and comply.

Nilson Elias Pinilla Pinilla, President, Mauricio González Cuervo, Juan Carlos Henao Pérez, Gabriel Eduardo Mendoza Martelo, Jorge Ivan Palacio Palacio, Jorge Ignacio Pretelt Chaljub, Maria Victoria Calle de Gomez, Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto, Luis Ernesto Vargas Silva, Magistrates.

Martha Victoria Sachica Mendez,

General Secretariat.

* * *

_{1 See, C- 241 , 1994. In that judgment, the Court considered that " The 1991 Constituent Assembly in the Chamber of Deputies, the competition to reconsider a bill that has been objected to, either for reasons of inconvenience or unconstitutionality, in All or in part, it is clear that the constitutional precepts related to the accused fragment are broken because, with open ignorance of the superior mandates, it restores the system that prevailed under the Constitution. which was consciously modified by the Constituent Assembly of 1991. The Court finds an ostensible violation of Articles 165 and 167 of the Political Charter, as it wishes to be standard in the article 197 of the 5th Act of 1992, in fact restores the system of the Charter of 1886 which the Constituent Assembly of 1991 eliminated, thereby thwaring the purpose that led him to entrust to the Plenaries of the Chambers the second The debate on the draft objectionable, which is none other than to ensure the active and decisive participation of the majority of the members of the legislative body in the decision of the presidential objections ".}

_{2 C-510 1996; C-063 2002; C-068 , 2004, and C- 072 , 2006.}

_{3 C-819 statement in 2004.}

_{4 Statement C-036 of 1998 and C-500 of 2005.}

_{5 C-068 statement , 2004, C-069 , 2004, and C-433 , 2004.}

_{6 C-1404 statement in 2000.}

_{7 View among other 2002 C-482 , C-531 , and 2006 C-072 Sentences.}

_{8 Among others, C-874 , 2005, C-849 , 2005.}

_{9 C-1146 statement from 2003.}

_{10 C-036 1998 and C-500 2005 statement}

_{11 See Statement C-072, 1999, C-044 , 2002, C-801 , 2003, C-1056 , 2003.}

_{12 C-539 statement of 2008.}

_{13 Statement C-208 of 2005 " is contrary to the principle of consistency in the approval of laws that a proposed text within the committees is not subject to the procedure The Commission's proposal for a Council Directive on the protection of the environment and the protection of the environment in the field of the environment (COM ())-(COM).-(COM).-(I) the first debate on the draft law, with the exception of the provisions of paragraph 2 of the 157 C.P. ".}

_{14 C-801 2003, C-839 2003, C-1113 2003, C-1056 2003, C-1147 2003 and C-1152 , 2003, 1092 , 2003, C-312 , 2004, C-313 , 2004, C-370 , 2004, C- 372 of 2004.}

_{15 C-839 statement of 2003.}

_{16 C-305 Statement of 2004.}

_{17 C-1488 2000, C-922 2001, C-950 2001, C-801 2003, C-839 2003.}

_{18 C-539 statement of 2008.}

_{19 Among many others, C-524 1995; C-815 , 2001; C-870 , 2003, and C-992 , 2006.}

_{20 2001 C-616 statement}

_{21 C-815 statement from 2001.}

_{22 C-616 statement from 2001.}

_{23 C-870 statement of 2003.}

_{24 Statement T-021 of 2005.}

_{25 C-392 statement from 2007.}

_{26 C-176 statement from 1996.}

_{27 That is based on the C.P. article 365 View among others the C-579/99 statement.}

_{28 Cuya justification is Article 49 of the Charter. For example, see the C-176/96 statement.}

_{29 Based on Article 77 of the Letter. View Statement C-333/99.}

_{30 That is based on Article 335 of the Charter, in this sense the C-332/00.}

_{31 C-252 statement from 1997.}

_{32 Constitutional Court, Statement C-251 of 2002.}

_{33 See foundation number 14 of this statement.}

_{34 Constitutional Court, Judgment C-482 of 1996. See also C-816 , 1999.}

_{35 C-950 Statement 2007.}

_{36 C-036 1998 and C-500 2005}

_{37 C-036 1998 and C-500 2005 statement}

_{38 View 2001 C-1052 statement}

_{39 View statement C-1052 of 2001 See in the same sense C-1115/04 statement.}

_{40 C-036 1998 and C-500 2005 statement}

_{41 Among many others, see C-535 1996, C-219 , 1997, C-579 , 2001, and C-1258 , 2001.}

_{42 C-219 statement from 1997.}

_{43 1996 C-535 statement}

_{44 C-535 statement from 1996.}

_{45 C-1258 statement in 2001.}

_{46 C-1258 statement from 2001.}

_{47 Cfr. Constitutional Court, C-720/99 statement.}

_{48 Ibidem.}

_{49 Cfr. Constitutional Court, C-statement-720/99.}

Constitutional Court

General Secretariat

Bogotá, D. C., four (4) February of two thousand ten (2010)

Trade No. CS-037

Doctor

JAVIER CÁCERES LEAL

President

Senate of the Republic

City

Reference: Case OP-120, C-856/09, Magistrate Judge Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto. Demanded Standard of Law 012 of 2006 Chamber, 087 of 2007 Senate "For which the Law 769 of 2002 (National Transit Code) is reformed and other provisions are dictated".

Dear Doctor:

Comedies, and pursuant to article 16 of Decree 2067 of 1991, I allow you to send you a copy of Judgment C-856 of 2009 of twenty-five (25) November of two thousand nine (2009), proffered within the reference process.

In time, I refer you the constant legislative file of 1,113 folios.

Cordially,

Martha Victoria Sachica Mendez,

General Secretariat.

Annex the judgment with 98 folios and the legislative file.

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

FULL ROOM

2009 C-856 STATEMENT

Reference: OP-120 case

Presidential Objections to Bill No. 012 of 2006 House, 087 of 2007 Senate, " For which reform of the Law 769 of 2002 (National Transit Code) and other provisions ".

Rapporteur Magistrate:

Doctor Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto

Bogota, D.C., November twenty-five (25) of two thousand nine (2009)

The Full Court of the Constitutional Court, in compliance with its constitutional powers and the requirements and procedures laid down in Decree 2067 of 1991, has proposed the following

STATEMENT

to decide on the objections of unconstitutionality formulated by the President of the Republic to the Project No. 012 of 2006 Chamber, 087 of 2007 Senate, " For which the Law 769 of 2002 is reformed (Code National Transit) and other provisions are dictated. "

I. BACKGROUND

The Constitutional Court, by judgment C-321 of 2009, on the occasion of the examination of a presidential objection submitted to the bill of No. 012 of 2006 Chamber, 087 of 2007 Senate, " href="ley_0769_2002.html#1"> 769 2002 (National Transit Code) and other provisions are dictated ", decided the following:

" First. Declare inhibited to provide a background failure in relation to paragraph 3 of Article 3o of the Bill No. 012, 2006 Chamber, 087 of 2007 Senate, "For which the Law 769 of 2002 (National Transit Code) is reformed and other provisions are dictated", for current lack of object.

Second. Declare unfounded the presidential objection filed against paragraph 3 of Article 4 of the Bill No. 012, 2006 Chamber, 087 of 2007 Senate, "By which reform the Law 769 of 2002 (National Transit Code) and other provisions are dictated", and consequently, is declared EXEQUABLE.

Third. Declare unfounded the presidential objection filed against article 5 (4) and Article 13 (1) of the Bill No. 012, 2006 Chamber, 087 of 2007 Senate, "By which reform the Law 769 of 2002 (National Transit Code) and other provisions are dictated", and consequently, is declared EXEQUABLE.

Fourth. Declare unfounded the presidential objection filed against paragraph 2 of Article 8o of the Bill No. 012, 2006 Chamber, 087 of 2007 Senate, "By which reform the Law 769 of 2002 (National Transit Code) and other provisions are dictated", and consequently, is declared EXEQUABLE.

Fifth. Declare inhibited to provide a background failure in relation to the "new" expression in article 11 of the law project no. 012, 2006 Chamber, 087 of 2007 Senate, "For which the Law 769 of 2002 (National Transit Code) is reformed and other provisions are dictated", for current lack of object.

Sixth. Declare inhibited to provide a background failure in relation to the paragraph 15 paragraph of the law bill No. 012, 2006 Chamber, 087 of 2007 Senate, "For which the Law 769 of 2002 (National Transit Code) is reformed and other provisions are dictated", for current lack of object.

Seventh. Declare founded the presidential objection filed against Article 21 and the expressions "The following points system is established: For each violation greater than or equal to 8 smlvd 2 points. For each infringement greater than or equal to 15 smlvd 6 points. For each violation greater than or equal to 30 smlvd 8 points", of article 17 of the bill, for violating the article 29 Superior, and consequently declare INEXEQUAL.

Eighth. Declare inhibited to provide a background failure in relation to paragraph 3 of Article 17 of the Bill No. 012, 2006 Chamber, 087 of 2007 Senate, "For which the Law 769 of 2002 (National Transit Code) is reformed and other provisions are dictated", for current lack of object.

Ninth. Declare unfounded the presidential objection filed against paragraph 2 of Article 24 of the Bill No. 012, 2006 Chamber, 087 of 2007 Senate, "By which reform the Law 769 of 2002 (National Transit Code) and other provisions are dictated", and consequently, is declared EXEQUABLE.

10th. Declare inhibited to propose a substantive failure, on the basis of violation of the principle of legality, in relation to article 24 of the bill No. 012, 2006 Chamber, 087 of 2007 Senate, "By which reform the Law 769 of 2002 (National Transit Code) and other provisions are dictated".

13th. Declare inhibited to propose a substantive failure, for the alleged charge of violation of the principle of equality, in relation to the transitional article of article 27 of the bill No. 012, 2006 Chamber, 087 of 2007 Senate, "By which reform the Law 769 of 2002 (National Transit Code) and other provisions are dictated", for inept objection.

12th. Declare unfounded the presidential objection filed against the transitional article of article 27 of the Bill No. 012, 2006 Chamber, 087 of 2007 Senate, "By which reform the Law 769 of 2002 (National Transit Code) and other provisions are dictated", for the charge of violation at the beginning of autonomy of the territorial entities.

Tenth third. Order that this bill be RETURNED to the Congress of the Republic, in order for it to do so and once the above has been fulfilled, it will be returned to the Court to verify its compliance, in accordance with Article 167 of the Political Constitution, in accordance with the motivating part of this failure ".

By communication received at the General Secretariat of this Corporation on October 1, 2009, the President of the Senate of the Republic referred, in compliance with article 167 Superior and of the C-321 judgment of 2009, the text of Law No. 012, 2006 Chamber, 087 of 2007 Senate, "By which reform the Law 769 of 2002 (National Transit Code) and other provisions are dictated", included "text remade and Substantiation approved by both Chambers on 25 and 29 September, respectively".

The Court's Full Room, by means of Auto 290 of seven (7) October 2009, decided to abstain from deciding as long as the constitutional and legal requirements required to do so were not met. In this regard, it ordered the General Secretariat of this Corporation to officiate the Secretaries-General of the Senate and the House of Representatives, for the purposes of referring, within the five (5) working days following the submission of the respective Congress ' i_aj"> Gacetas content of the discussions and approvals of the redone text.

II. METHODOLOGY

In the present case, the Court will adopt the following methodology (i) examine the content and scope of its competence with respect to the subsequent text redone and integrated by the Congress of the Republic; (ii) summarize the citizen's interventions or of state entities filed; (iii) will describe the procedure in the Congress of the Republic after the adoption of the judgment C-321 of 2009, (iv) will examine whether the one has adjusted to the Constitution; (v) If yes, it will analyze whether the Congress has redone and integrated the text of the bill, in the terms stated in the Court's judgment.

1. Jurisdiction of the Court in relation to the subsequent text redone and integrated by the Congress of the Republic

a. Brief historical evolution

An examination of the various national constitutional texts shows that, with some nuances and particularities, the President of the Republic has always had the constitutional power to oppose the sanction of a given project of law, invoking various reasons of legal or political order, within certain times, according to the quantity of articles objected. From then on, a discussion was held with the legislative body, which finally is settled by various solutions established by the Political Letters, within which control would appear constitutional.

In this sense, it is necessary to recall that the Constitution of 1886 regulated the figure of presidential objections on grounds of inconvenience_[1] or unconstitutionality_[2], introducing as an important novelty the control of constitutionality for the latter case, in the head of the Supreme Court of Justice. In effect, in the terms of the original article 90 of the said Political Charter "Except for the provisions of article 88 the case that the project is objected to by unconstitutionality. In this case, if the Chambers insist, the bill will go to the Supreme Court, so that she, within six days, decides on her exequability. The Court's affirmative ruling forces the President to sanction the law. If it is negative, the project" will be archived.

[passage omitted] Well, within the reforms that the Constitution of 1886 has learned regarding the control of constitutionality over presidential objections, the Legislative Act has to be held. 3 of October 31, 1910, arranged the following:

" Article 41. The Supreme Court is entrusted with the preservation of the integrity of the Constitution. As a result, in addition to the powers conferred upon you by this and the laws, you will have the following:

Decide definitively on the exequibility of Legislative Acts that have been objected to as unconstitutional by the Government, or on all laws or decrees charged to it by any citizen such as unconstitutional, upon hearing of the Attorney General of the Nation. "

Years later, the Legislative Act No. 1 of February 16, 1945 amended the regulation of the control of constitutionality over presidential objections, in the following terms:

" Article 53.

Article 147 of the Constitution will thus remain:

Item 147.

The Supreme Court of Justice is confined to keeping the integrity of the Constitution. As a result, in addition to the powers conferred upon you by this and the laws, you will have the following:

Decide definitively on the exequibility of bills that have been objected to by the government as unconstitutional, or on all the laws or decrees dictated by the government in exercise of the powers of the Articles 11 and 12 of Article 69 and article 117 of the National Constitution, when they are accused of unconstitutionality by any citizen.

In the actions of inexilibility, the Attorney General of the Nation must always intervene.

Later, the Legislative Act No. 1 of December 11, 1968, in relation to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Justice in matters of presidential objections by unconstitutionality, the following:

" Article 71.

Article 214 of the National Constitution will remain so:

The Supreme Court is entrusted with the preservation of the integrity of the Constitution. As a result, in addition to the powers conferred upon you by this and the laws, you will have the following:

1. To decide definitively on the exequibility of the bills that have been objected by the government as unconstitutional, both for its material content and for procedural defects in its formation.

In turn, the current regulation of the processing of presidential objections is found in articles 165, 166, 167, 168 , and 241.8 constitutional; 79.4, 196 a 201 of the 1992 5th Act and 1991 Decree 2067 .

In this regard, in accordance with Article 167 Superior, if the Court considers that the project is partially inexequable, it will indicate to the Chamber in which it had its origin so that, heard by the Minister of the Industry, it reacts and integrates the provisions affected in concordant terms with the opinion of the Court. Upon completion of this procedure, the project will be referred to the Court for a final ruling.

Joined to the above, it is necessary to take into account that article 79.4 of the Law 5th of 1992 provides that in each session of the Chambers and its Permanent Commissions only the subjects included in the order of the day, "in the following order: 4) objections of the President of the Republic, or who does his or her times, to the projects approved by the Congress, and reports of the respective commissions". Similarly, article 200 of the same standard states that "When a House has declared unfounded the objections raised by the Government to a bill, and the another will be founded, the project will be archived".

In this order of ideas, the current constitutional regulation of presidential objections, although it presents certain similarities with that of the previous Political Charter, offers as new that judicial control of constitutionality does the Constitutional Court and that unlike the expired Constitution, which dealt with the partial objection to the respective permanent constitutional commission and the total to the House of origin, the Constitution of 1991 points out that in any case, the Reconsideration of the bill corresponds to the Chambers in plenary, with the foregoing of the partial or total nature of the objection raised or the cause of the objection^[3].

In this order of ideas, a review by the history of Colombian constitutionalism shows the presence of certain constants, coupled with our presidential system of government: (i) the president has had the constitutional power of refuse to sanction a bill duly approved by the Chambers, for reasons of inconvenience; (ii) such jurisdiction may be exercised over the whole project or with respect to certain articles thereof; (iii) objections must be submitted for a given time, depending on the quantity of articles objected to; (iv) the Congress may choose to accept the observations of the Executive or insist on the approval of the initial text; (v) in this second hypothesis, provided that they measure certain congressional majorities, the project will be finally adopted, must be sanctioned by the President of the Republic. Similarly, in the case of presidential objections on the basis of the grounds of unconstitutionality (i) in certain nineteenth-century Constitutions, those were dealt with in the same way as the objections to (ii) only up to 1910 was established a judicial control of constitutionality on the same, in charge of the Supreme Court of Justice; (iii) throughout the various reforms that the Political Charter of 1886 knew, perfecting the control of constitutionality in respect of presidential objections for reasons of (iv) the control of constitutionality was extended to the material content of the objections and to the examination of procedural defects in the process of the same; and (v) at present, once the Court declares partially inexequible a draft law objecting, the Congress of the Republic must "redo" and "integrate" the new text of the aforementioned project, in accordance with the ruling made by the Constitutional Court.

b. Content of the duty to "redo and integrate" the text of the Constitutional Court bill and competence

As has been stated, once the Constitutional Court decides to declare a draft law partially inexequable by the President of the Republic, it must be returned to the Chamber in which it originated so that, the Minister heard of the branch, "remade and integrate the affected provisions in concordant terms with the Court's opinion. Upon completion of this procedure, the project will be referred to the Court for final judgment".

Well, throughout its case law, this Corporation has set some jurisprudential lines concerning the sense of duty that the Congress of "redo and integrate" will assist with the text of the proposed bill, and correlatively, the scope of the constitutional judge's competence.

Thus, it has been considered that (i) the Congress must "make up" a new text that is compatible with the provisions of the Court at the time of the examination of the constitutionality of the rules objected to_[4]; (ii) the action of the Congress to comply with the Court's judgment, first of all, the need to review or delete the vitiated texts and to integrate them into the project so that it finally develops in the subject matter of its regulation, " attending to the considerations and procedures formulated by the Constitutional Court"_[5]; (iii) the control of constitutionality to be exercised, once the duty imposed on the Congress in the article 167 Superior, is not limited to examining the congressional procedure, but also the actual compliance of the failure offered by this Corporation (material control)_[6]; (iv) the review task to be brought forward by the Congress is not limited to eliminate the number and modify the numbering of the proposed bill, but it extends to harmonize the text with the ruling of the Court, which is expressed in the resolutive part and is based on the ratio decidendi_[7]; (v) Congress does not develop a simple task " mechanics", in the sense of deleting from the text the articles declared inexequitable by the Court, but must materially reconfigure the bill_[8], in order to comply with the judge's ruling constitutional; (vi) it has been admitted that, in case the Congress fails with its duty to redo and properly integrate the bill, " the most appropriate decision-making formula was to forward the bill to the Chambers, in order to reformulate its text in concordant terms with the judgment which declared the objections partly based "_[9]; (vii) the House where the partially unconstitutional bill originated, will be in the respective Plenary where the process of review and reform of the inexequible rules is initiated, in order to integrate them into the project, taking care that it maintains its " theme unit"_[10]; (viii) superseded the previous stage, you must pass the modified project to the other Chamber for discussion and respective approval; in the event that discrepancies arise in this opportunity, you can an accidental mediation commission to present a definitive proposal to the chambers for approval or rejection_[11]; (ix) configures a procedural vice, if the Minister of the Ramo is not ordered to listen before starting the debate in the Plenaries_[12]; and (x) the citation can understand several ministers if the object of such a project involves issues related to different ministries_[13].

Now, the Court considers it necessary to advance some precisions in terms of the duty of "redo" and "integrate" a partially inexequible declared bill.

The work consisting of "redo" and "integrate" a bill allude to activities linked to the legislative technique, understood as the art of drafting the legal precepts of Well structured form, complying with the principles of coherence and legal certainty_[14]. In this regard, authors such as Bulygin_[15], Atienza_[16] and Aguilo_[17], understand by legislative technique a set of resources and procedures to draft a legal standard, following the following steps: first, the justification or explanatory statement of the rule; then, drawing up its material content in a clear, short, simple and accessible manner for the addressees of the provision.

In this order of ideas, the legislative technique consists of a set of rules aimed at adjusting the functional behavior of the legislator, for the proper elaboration of the law.

Well, the activity consisting of "redo", according to the Dictionary of the Royal Spanish Academy, consists of " 1. Go back to doing what had been undone, or done wrong. 2 tr. Reform, recast "; whereas"integrate"is understood" 1. Said of the parties: Constituir a whole. 2. tr. Complete a whole with the missing parts. 3. tr. Make someone or something happen to be part of a whole. "

So things, understanding the expressions "redo" e " integrating" in the context of the constitutional process of presidential objections, the work of the Congress has to be done, once the Court has declared partially an inexequible bill, consists of (i) suppressing the text of the law the normative segments declared inexequitable by the Court; (ii) to add or to delete those expressions that are strictly necessary to agree a rational sense to the bill, seen as a whole; (iii) to modify the numbering and the titles, if necessary; and (iv) to make the grammatical adjustments and Relevant syntactic. In the past, it is intended that the draft law, once redone and integrated, will constitute a normative, harmonious and coherent text.

Now, those tasks carried out by the Congress of the Republic should not only be guided by the classic principles of the legislative technique, but they cannot exceed the ratio of the control decision of constitutionality. The above means that it is forbidden for Congress to modify those articles of the bill that do not have a close relationship, of material connection, with the constitutional foundations that served the Court to declare inexequible. one or more provisions of that. In other words, while the Congress may make the necessary technical adjustments to the draft law, even introducing the amendments that are relevant to articles not initially objected to by the President of the Republic, It is also the case that this power is limited by the constitutional reasons that led to the Court's ruling.

In sum, the Constitutional Court's jurisdiction in matters of bills declared partially inexequible, extends to verifying (i) the advance procedure in the Congress of the Republic (formal control); and (ii) compliance with the duty to redo and integrate the text of the bill into the terms of the constitutionality control statement (material control).

2. Citizen interventions and state entities

The Minister of Transport, by writing on 2 October 2009 at the General Secretariat of the Court, states:

" Based on article 167 of the Political Constitution, this Ministerial Office through written document identified with No. 322681 and based on August 13 at the Secretariat of the House of Representatives, proposed the content of the articles of the bill based on the ruling made by that Corporation in judgment C-321 of May 11, 2009.

is a great concern about the discrepancy that has been presented between the Congress of the Republic and the executive regarding the interpretation given to the objection presented to article 17 of the bill that contemplates a system of points. The objection is based on showing the incongruity and inaccuracies referred to in the points system contained in Article 17 of the draft. The analysis by the honourable Constitutional Court is based on the fact that, as has already been stated, the scope of the objection presented was aimed at demonstrating the violation of the rules, with the wording of article 17 questioned. The system of points established in addition to being imprecise, is incongruous, and with its inclusion it puts in uncertainty the legal operator leaving to the will which of the two systems it must apply, since the article 21 of the plan also provides for a system of points which, unlike the aforementioned points system of 17, is precise and consistent with the other provisions of the National Transit Code.

The above means that when the legal world comes out of the system of points in Article 17, it gives full validity to the arguments put forward by the executive, but this does not imply that Article 21, which was not objected to by the executive, should be to be declared inexequible; it is then understood that the system of points referred to in Article 21 is in force, a provision that was not the subject of any legal discussion and therefore must produce full legal effects on the control of the traffic offences committed by drivers.

According to the above, it is established with meridian clarity that it is Article 17 of the project, which must be declared inexequable, but not Article 21, because in the resolutive part of the judgment the articles were inexequible 17 and 21 of the project.

Therefore, the content and the scope of the judgment, both in the considered and in the resolutive part, in respect of the objection to Article 17 cited above, are clarified.

3. Procedure set up in the Congress of the Republic after the adoption of the C-321 judgment of 2009

3.1. House of Representatives

3.1.1. Shaping the Accidental Commission and Reporting

On August 4, 2009, Representatives Alonso Acosta and Gloria Stella Diaz Ortiz, acting in their capacity as members of the Accidental Commission, formed to remake and integrate the text of the Law Project No. 012, 2006 Chamber, 087 of 2007 Senate, "by which reform the Law 769 of 2002 National Transit Code" proceeded to render the corresponding report, according to the text published in the Congressional Gazette No. 675 of 2009 (pp. 1 et seq.).

3.1.2. Announcement and vote on the report of the Accidental Commission in Plenary

The text of the Redone Text Report is published in the Congress Gazette No. 675 of 2009. It was announced before its vote in plenary session on August 5, 2009, as stated in the Minutes of Plenary. 194 of the same date, published in the Congress Gazette No. 889 of 2009. The announcement text is as follows:

The General Secretariat reports, Dr. Flor Marina Daza:

The following projects are announced for the Plenary Session of August 11 or for the next session in which bills or legislative acts are discussed.

(...)

Text report remade

Report to redo and integrate the text of Bill 012 of 2006 House, 087 of 2007 Senate, by which reform the Law 779 of 2002, National Transit Code and other provisions.

During the Plenary Session No. 195 of August 11, 2009, which is published in the Congress Gazette No. 1051 of 2009, the Report of the Redone and Integrated Text was approved, in the following terms:

" Address of the Session by the Presidency, Dr. James Britto Pelaez:

Warning to close the record.

Deputy Secretary General Dr. Flor Marina Daza Ramirez:

The President authorizes Dr. Carlos Zuluaga to vote manually, Dr. Zuluaga, vote Yes.

Deputy Secretary General, Dr. Flor Marina Daza Ramirez:

The President authorizes the vote of Dr. Ramiro Devia, votes Yes.

Address of the Session by the Presidency, Dr. James Britto Pelaez:

The registration is closed, please Mr. Secretary report the result of the vote.

Secretary General, Dr. Jesus Alfonso Rodriguez C.:

The record is closed. By Yes 104 and No 3. "

3.1.3. Surrender of the concept of the Minister of Transport

On July 21, 2009, the President of the House of Representatives referred to the Minister of Transport a "of Notification to the Minister of Transport 012 of 2006 Chamber, 087 of 2007 Senate", the which appears in the Congressional Gazette No. 734 of 2009, and whose text is as follows:

"Bogotá, D. C., July 21, 2009

S.G. 2-1789/2009

Doctor

ANDRÉS URIEL GALLEGO HENAO

Minister of Transport

CAN, El Dorado Avenue

Bogotá, D. C.

Subject: Bill 012 of 2006 House, 087 of 2007 Senate, for which the 2002 Law 769 (National Transit Code) is reformed and other provisions are dictated.

Respected Mr. Minister:

On the instructions of the President of the Corporation, Dr. Edgar Alfonso Gomez Roman, and in compliance with the judgment number C-321 of 11 May 2009, proposed by the Full Chamber of the honourable Court Constitutional, and in accordance with article 167 of the Colombian Political Constitution, in the most attentive and respectful way, I allow myself to request you as Minister of the Ramo, decide on the draft law in reference.

The above, for the purpose of Redoing and Integrating the affected provisions in accordance with the Court's opinion, for final judgment.

To this effect, I may annex to the present, copy of the statement in mention, copy of the Report of Presidential Objections, copy of the report of the accidental commission designated for such effect and copy of the text law.

Cordially,

The Secretary General,

Alfonso Rodriguez Camargo ".

Then, on July 28, 2009, the President of the House of Representatives referred to the same official a "of Reiteration for pronouncement to the Minister of Transport 012 of 2006 Chamber, 087 of 2007 Senate", text that appears published in the Congress Gazette number 734 of 2009.

Finally, on August 13, 2009, according to publication appearing in the Congress Gazette number 734 of 2009, the Minister of Transport proceeded to render the concept of rigor. In that document, the official states:

" In consideration of the provisions of article 167 , this Office proceeds to analyze and redo and integrate the articles of the draft statement and which were objected to by the executive, In accordance with the provisions of the Constitutional Court by Judgment C-321 of 11 May 2009, in the following terms:

a) First objection. Paragraph 3 of Article 3o.

With the removal of paragraph 3o, the objection presented is subsals; therefore there is no observation by the Ministry.

b) Second objection. Article 4 (4) and (2) and (3) or Article 4 (2) or Article 6 (2) or Article 6 (2).

With the deletion of the second part of Article 4 (4) of the project and the deletion of the second paragraph of Article 6o of the project, the contradiction contained in the project disappears; therefore, there is no comment on the part of the project. Ministry.

With regard to paragraph 3 of Article 4, the Court is welcomed and therefore this paragraph is maintained.

c) Third objection. Numeral 4, Article 5 or point 1 of Article 13.

the Court considers that the wording of Articles 5 or 13 does not constitute a violation of the constitutional regime and that, on the contrary, it is a discussion of a factual character that escapes the jurisdiction of the judge. constitutional.

With regard to the deadline for compliance with the requirements for obtaining the express accreditation, the National Government has an additional prudential time, i.e. the term of the twelve (12) months set out in paragraph 2 of Article 5 (2). of the bill in respect of the Driver Recognition Centers, not considering this time limit for the enabling and accreditation of the Centers of Automotive Diagnostics that speaks article 13 of the project. Therefore, in order to combine the articles as expressed by the Court and the Attorney General's Office, it is necessary to contemplate the same period of time mentioned in paragraph 2 of Article 4 of the project.

The above is that the accreditation process for these two entities has the same purpose and the procedure to be applied must be transversal.

According to the provisions of Article 5 of the project, the same and Article 13 are added to paragraph 2 of Article 5 of the project:

Article 13. Article 53 of Law 769 of 2002 will thus remain:

Article 53. Automotive Diagnostic Centers. The technical-mechanical and pollutant emission review shall be carried out in legally constituted automotive diagnostic centres which have the conditions to be determined by the regulations issued by the Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of the Environment in terms of its powers. The Ministry of Transport will enable these centres, which must be recognised in advance in the National System of Standardisation, Certification and Metrology by being accredited as an inspection body.

The requirements, procedures, tests, personnel, equipment, tests and minimum information systems to be accredited by the automotive diagnostic center, to obtain the aforementioned accreditation will be stipulated by the Superintendence of Industry and Trade, with scope to the provisions of the regulations of the Ministry of Transport.

The results of the technical-mechanical and pollutant emissions review will be recorded in a uniform document whose characteristics will be determined by the Ministry of Transport. For the review of the vehicle, only the presentation of its transit licence and the relevant compulsory insurance shall be required.

PARAGRAFO 1o. Who does not carry such a document will incur the penalties provided for in the law. For all legal purposes, this will be considered as a public document.

PARAGRAFO 2o. The Ministry of Transport shall regulate so that within up to 12 months the Automotive Diagnostic Centres comply with the requirements for enabling and accreditation.

d) Fourth objection. Article 8 (2) or paragraph 2.

This is welcomed by the Constitutional Court; therefore, paragraph 2 of Article 8o of the draft is maintained.

e) Fifth objection. Article 11.

With the deletion of the word new? the unconstitutionality raised is remedied. Consequently, their content is not incorporated into the project.

f) Sixth objection. Paragraph 15. paragraph 15.

With the removal of the paragraph of this article, the unconstitutionality raised is subsated.

g) Seventh objection. Articles 17 and 21.

a) First paragraph of article 17

This Ministry does not share the analysis made by the Congress of the Republic regarding the legal uncertainty that would be generated in the area of sanctions, due to the report of the traffic violations carried out by the Transit Agencies. The RAT system, since the Transit Agency is the information generator and is the one who has the obligation to report this information to the National Register of Transit. In addition, it is the Transit Agency that feeds the information handled by the SIMIT; therefore it could be accepted that the information that a Transit Agency reports to the RUNT system is not truthful and contrary to the principle of legality as This is expressed by that Corporation, while the SIMIT-managed one is the same information if it addresses the principle of legality and is reliable and truthful.

A second aspect that leaves this office concerned is the conclusion reached by the honourable Constitutional Court, as to what it is necessary to examine whether the creation of the National Single Transit Registry will violate the articles of the Constitution. constitutional 209 and 287, since the manifest in the presidential objection is based on the duality of functions exercised so much by the SIMIT as by the RUNT. The latter and that its legality is not being questioned, is a system of information created by Law 769 of 2002 in order to integrate information not only of traffic violations but of all the information that originates from the transport and transit actors and which are described in Article 8o, thus being the RUNT the parent system of all the mentioned procedures, while the SIMIT is a system that only records the violations.

On the other hand, it does not share this office that the problem posed is technical, as the Constitutional Court concludes, since we insist, there is a duality of functions between these two systems, with their implementation being unknown. principles of public administration of article 209 and generating significant and unnecessary expenditure on territorial entities as long as, with the implementation of the RUNT, the Transit agencies will report the information directly at no cost. In the second term, this provision is forcing the Transit Agencies to use an intermediary to report the information of violations that they originate and could well report it directly at no cost.

In addition to what was stated in this ruling contrary to what was stated in another opportunity by the Constitutional Court by Judgment C-477 of 2003, when the paragraph of Article 10 of Law 769 of 2002, which determined that a SIMIT headquarters should exist in all the dependencies of the Transit Agencies.

Since the Court of Justice delivered this judgment on this first paragraph of Article 17 of the draft, determining that, because it is a technical problem, it escapes the competence of the constitutional judge and therefore does not make a In fact, there is no alternative but to welcome the statement, reiterating that this Ministry does not share the position taken by the Court.

b) Point system versus the commission of traffic violations.

Regarding this point, a concern arises from the Ministry, given the lack of clarity in the resolution part of the sentence in its seventh article and the aspects considered by the honourable Court at the time of the analysis. objection submitted by the President of the Republic.

Concludes the Court that two systems of sanctioning for different points cannot coexist in the same normative text as this would leave the judge's discretion to apply. Likewise, it considers the presidential objection filed against Article 21 and the expressions " to be based on the following points system: For each violation greater than or equal to 8 smlvd 2 points. For each violation greater than or equal to 15 smlvd 6 points, For each breach greater than or equal to 30 smlvd 8 points ", of article 17 of the bill, for violating the article 29 Superior and as consequence expresses the Court "... declare INEXEQUAL".

Analyzed the reasons explained by the President of the Republic, it is found that the inconsistencies presented in Article 17 were detected there, which among other aspects does not address the principle of proportionality or from the perspective quantitative and qualitative; it does not correspond to the amount of the pecuniary sanctions and the loss of points, between the seriousness of the fault and the sanction imposed.

Of the arguments presented is found, as the Attorney General's Office says, that the system of points enshrined in Article 21 of the bill is rationally clearer and more precise than the one set out in article 17 objected to.

The President also points out in the support of the objection submitted that, under the provisions of Article 7o of the project, through which Article 26 of the CNTT was amended, where the causes of suspension and cancellation of the driving licence, the points system referred to in Article 17 of the project would not be applicable, as in that article the system of points referred to in Article 21 of the draft was expressly cited, through which it was implemented the points system according to the violations of the article 131 of the National Transit Code.

Thus, it is concluded in the objection presented by the President of the Republic that given the considerations and references that are made in the other articles of the project object of study it is appropriate to maintain only the system of points as set out in Article 21 of the draft amending Article 131 of the CNTT.

This position is also supported because there are other articles in the project that were constructed in a coordinated way with the points system of Article 21 as are the articles 4 of the project in its paragraph 1o that contemplated the allocation of twelve (12) points to the driving licence holders of any category which shall be reduced or recovered in accordance with their behaviour as a driver and, in Article 7o of the draft, set out in the number 5, as a causal suspension of the driving licence, loss of (6) points and in the cause of cancellation in the numeral 7 the loss of twelve (12) points. In other words, the number of points determines whether there was a recurrence in the commission of an infringement or not, producing the described effects of suspension or cancellation.

According to what the Constitutional Court stated as mentioned above, two sanctioning systems must not coexist and the objection presented shows are the inconsistencies that the system of points contemplated in the article suffers. 17 of the project, while on the contrary Article 21 as expressed is consistent with the other articles of the project and with its content itself; therefore and taking into account the analysis made by the Constitutional Court we infer that the which was declared inexequable by the superior judge in the seventh article of the judgment are the expressions: " The following points system is set: For each violation greater than or equal to 8 smlvd 2 points, For each violation greater than or equal to 15 smlvd 6 points. For each violation greater than or equal to 30 smlvd 8 points ", of article 17 of the bill.

It is important to note that without the points system referred to in Article 21 of the project, the Transit Authorities could not decree the suspension or the cancellation of the driving license, which would result in impunity and disarticulation in the sanctioning system in the field of transit, since through these two figures the sanction materializes.

Exposed the foregoing is concluded that article 21 of the bill is maintained in its entirety and the part of article 17 of the bill declared inexequable by the Constitutional Court is eliminated, thus being remedied in this way. unconstitutionality raised.

h) Eighth objection. Paragraph 3 of Article 17.

With the removal of paragraph 3 of Article 17 of the draft, the objection presented is subsals; therefore, there is no observation by the Ministry.

i) No objection. Paragraph 2 of Article 24.

El Comercio] In this objection, three inconsistencies were translated by the Presidency of the Republic, two of them in violation of constitutional norms, and, according to the analysis made by the Constitutional Court, this Ministry did not consider statement by the high court on two of them.

a) Paragraph 2o of Article 24

It is welcomed by the Constitutional Court that violation of the principle of autonomy of the territorial entities is not configured.

As to the modification introduced by the legislator to the object of study, in concept of this Ministry, it is a matter completely alien to the process of objections, but equally it cannot be unknown that the original wording was What the amendment does is to say that the discount being granted is the first to be mentioned in Article 24, that is, 50%.

Being this transitional paragraph, because it will only be applicable for a term of twelve (12) months counted from the time of the law, the legislator affected the content of the aforementioned article 24 of the project which is permanent, changing the expression: "in these cases" by the expression "in the latter case", understanding that this modification was intended to benefit the debtors described in paragraph 2o of the article 24.

As the modification to the article is made, only the offenders who get the 25% discount will be required to attend the course and not, those who get the 50% benefit, thereby generating an inequality.

It is to be noted that the Constitutional Court did not rule on the amendment to Article 24, which, as in the previous case, has no causal relationship with the objections raised by the President of the Republic and that, in the modification made to the content of paragraph 2o, was declared inhibited to pronounce.

Nevertheless, it is reiterated, the Congress of the Republic, in addition to having introduced a modification to the content of paragraph 2 of Article 24 of the draft that has no causal relationship with the objections presented by the President of the the Republic, proceeded to modify the content of article 24, in the sense of suppressing the course for those who are obliged to pay 50% of the value of the infraction, reason for which this Ministry leaves to the consideration of the Congress to integrate this Article 4 (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1016/1of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 March 2015 on the application of Article 3 (1) of the Treaty

b) Contracaddiction between items 24 and 22 of the project.

Regarding the contradiction evidenced between Articles 22 and 24 that express " If the contraventor does not appear without fair cause proven at this time, the fine will be increased up to twice its value and "... if you are declared a contractor you will be charged one hundred percent (100%) of the value of the fine." Respectively, the Constitutional Court made no mention, but in fact the Congress of the Republic at the time welcomed the objection presented and eliminated the expression of article 22, thus being overcome by the unconstitutionality.

In this order of ideas articles 22 and 24 of the bill will be left as follows:

Article 22. Article 135 of Law 769 of 2002 will thus remain:

Article 135. Procedure. Before the commission of a violation, the transit authority must follow the following procedure to enforce the comparison:

Order to stop the running of the vehicle and extend to the driver the order of comparison in which it will order the offender to appear before the competent transit authority within five (5) working days. The driver will be given a copy of the order of comparison.

For the service in addition it will be mailed within three (3) working days following copy of the comparison to the owner of the vehicle, to the company to which it is linked and to the Superintendence of Ports and Transport for the competence.

The order of comparison must be signed by the driver, as long as this is possible. If the driver refuses to sign or present the licence, he or she shall sign a witness, which shall be fully identified with the number of his citizenship or passport card, address of address and telephone if he has it.

However, the competent authorities may contract the service of technical and technological means that permit evidence of the commission of violations or violations, the vehicle, the date, the place and the time. In such a case, it will be sent by mail within three (3) working days following the infringement and its supports to the owner who will be obliged to pay the fine. For the public service it will also be sent by mail within this same term copy of the comparison and its supports to the company to which it is linked and to the Superintendence of Ports and Transport for that of its competence.

The Ministry of Transport will determine the technical characteristics of the national single comparison form, as well as its delivery system. The driver shall indicate to the driver that he shall have the right to appoint a proxy if he so wishes and that the evidence he requests shall be issued or carried out at the hearing for which he is summoned. The comparison shall also provide the space to record the address of the defendant or the witness who has subscribed to it.

PARAGRAFO 1o. The transit authority shall provide the competent official or the entity with which it is responsible for its collection, within twelve (12) hours, of the copy of the order of comparison, subject to the use of a cause of misconduct.

When dealing with highway police officers, the delivery of this copy will be done through the route commander or the service director commander.

PARAGRAFO 2o. Transit agencies may enter into contracts or agreements with public or private entities, in order to implement the principles of speed and efficiency in the collection of fines.

j) Decimal objection. Article 27.

It is welcomed by the Constitutional Court, so the content of article 27 of the project is maintained.

The observations made by this Ministry and having regard to what the Constitutional Court has expressed, we proceed to integrate the article which is attached to the present office.

Cordially,

The Minister of Transport,

Andres Uriel Gallego Henao.

Annex: Twenty-five (24) Foles ".

* * *

_{1 Arts 86 to 88 of the Constitution of 1886.}

_{2 Gaona Cruz, Manuel. Control and Reform of the Constitution in Colombia. Bogotá, 1983.}

_{3 See, C-241 , 1994. In that judgment, the Court considered that " The 1991 Constituent Assembly in the Chamber of Deputies, the jurisdiction to reconsider a bill that has been objected to, either for reasons of inconvenience or unconstitutionality, in All or in part, it is clear that the constitutional precepts related to the accused fragment are broken because, with open ignorance of the superior mandates, it restores the system that prevailed under the Constitution. This was the previous one, which was consciously modified by the 1991 Constituent Assembly. The Court finds an ostensible violation of Articles 165 and 167 of the Political Charter, as it wishes to be standard in the article 197 of the 5th Act of 1992, in fact restores the system of the Charter of 1886 which the Constituent Assembly of 1991 eliminated, thereby thwaring the purpose that led him to entrust to the Plenaries of the Chambers the second The debate on the draft objectionable, which is none other than to ensure the active and decisive participation of the majority of the members of the legislative body in the decision of the presidential objections ".}

_{4 Auto 168 of 2007.}

_{5 Statement C-1076 of 2000.}

_{6 Auto 008a, 2004.}

_{7 Ibidem.}

_{8 Ibidem.}

_{9 Auto 168 of 2007.}

_{10 Auto 309 of 2001.}

_{11 Ibidem.}

_{12 Ibidem.}

_{13 Ibidem.}

_{14 Sainz Moreno. Legislative Technique. Madrid: Civitas, 1995.}

_{15 Bulygin, E. Theory and technique of legislation. Mexico, 1991.}

_{16 Atienza, M. Practical Reason and Legislation. Mexico: 1991.}

_{17 Eagle, J. Legislative technique and autonomic documentation of legislation. Madrid, 1990.}

The Minister of Transport then proceeds to present the redone and integrated text of the entire National Transit Code, in accordance with his observations, previously transcribed.

3.1.4. Surrender a new report to redo and integrate the definitive text.

On August 19, 2009, that is, after having voted favorably in Plenary, the report of the Accidental Commission, the members of the latter, proceeded to render a new report, arguing the following:

" This report is presented by second time, for the first time, the Minister of the branch had not made his pronouncement, so it was impossible to take into account his observations at that time. Having surrendered its concept the Minister, by means of communication dated August 12 and based before this Corporation on August 13, it is now the Commission to present again the report of redone and integrated text ".

Once the judgment handed down by the Constitutional Court and the report rendered by the Minister of Transport were analyzed, the members of the Accidental Commission proposed the following:

" III. PROPOSITION

In accordance with the provisions of the Constitutional Court in Judgment C-321 of May 11, 2009, to redo and integrate the text of the Bill 012 of 2006 House, 087 of 2007 Senate, by which the Law 769 of 2002 National Transit Code is reformed, and other provisions are dictated, and once heard by the Minister of Transport, it is proposed:

1. Redo the text of the article 4 of the project, which modifies article 17 of Law 769 of 2002, eliminating the paragraph that refers to the license with the system of points, in reason of the declaratory of This is an inexequability made by the Constitutional Court. The removed paragraph enshrined:

PARAGRAFO 1o. The holder of the driving license of any category, a total of twelve (12) points will be assigned to them, which will be reduced or recovered according to their behavior, as a driver, compliance with what is set in this code.

2. Redo the text of article 7o of the project, which modifies article 26 of Law 769 of 2002, eliminating the numerals referred to the points system in the driving licenses, as follows:

a) The license suspension causes remove the numeral 5, which enshrined:

5. For the loss of six (6) points, it will be suspended for the term of six (6) months. The points will be lost according to what is set out in article 131 of this code.

b) The license cancellation causes remove the numeral 7, which enshrined:

7. For the loss of the twelve (12) points, as set out in article 131 of this code. This penalty will be effective once the corresponding administrative acts are signed.

In addition, the wording of the paragraph is adjusted to ensure the consistency and consistency of the entire article, as follows:

PARAGRAFO. The suspension or cancellation of the driving license implies the mandatory delivery of the document to the competent transit authority to impose the penalty for the period of the suspension or from the cancellation of she.

The notification of the suspension or cancellation of the driving license shall be made in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Administrative Contentious Code.

Translate three years from cancellation, the driver will be able to reapply for a new driving license.

3. Redo the text of article 17 of the project, which modifies article 93 of Law 769 of 2002, eliminating the ones that established the system of points, given the declaration of inexilibility made by the honourable Constitutional Court. The removed ones are as follows:

The following points system is set:

For each violation greater than or equal to 8 smlvd 2 points.

For each violation greater than or equal to 15 smlvd 6 points.

For each violation greater than or equal to 30 smlvd 8 points.

4. Redo the text of article 21 of the project, which modifies article 131 of Law 769 of 2002, eliminating the ones that refer to the system of points, given the declaration of inexilibility made by the honourable Constitutional Court. The deleted ones are the ones that are highlighted below:

131. Loss of points and fines. Violators of traffic rules will be punished with the imposition of fines or with fines and loss of points, according to the type of infraction thus:

B. It will be sanctioned with a fine equivalent to eight (8) daily minimum legal wages in force and the loss of one (1) point, the driver and/or owner of an automotive vehicle that incurs any of the following violations:

C. It will be sanctioned with a fine equivalent to fifteen (15) minimum daily legal wages in force and the loss of two (2) points, the driver and/or owner of an automotive vehicle that incurs any of the following violations:

D. It will be sanctioned with a fine equivalent to thirty (30) daily minimum legal wages in force and the loss of three (3) points, the driver and/or owner of an automotive vehicle that incurs any of the following violations:

E. Will be sanctioned with a fine equivalent to forty-five (45) minimum daily legal wages in force and with the loss of six (6) points the driver and/or owner of an automotive vehicle that incurs any of the following violations:

E. 3. Driving in a state of drunkenness or under the effects of hallucinogenic substances will be treated as set out in article 152 of this code. In the case of drivers of public service vehicles, school transport or driving instructor drivers, the pecuniary fine, loss of points and the period of suspension of the licence shall be doubled. In all cases of drunkenness the vehicle will be immobilized and the state of drunkenness or alcoholemia will be established by a test that does not cause injury, which will be determined by the Institute of Legal Medicine and Forensic Sciences.

In addition, the paragraphs that referenced the points system are also removed. The removed parts are as follows:

PARAGRAFO 1o. The driver who has not been sanctioned within a period of one (1) year, will be reset to the missing points.

PARAGRAFO 2o. The traffic violations, the sanction of which is the imposition of fines as described in other articles of Law 769 of 2002, will also result in the loss of 1, 2, 3 or 6 points, if the penalty of fine is in its order of 8, 15, 30 or 45 daily legal minimum wages in force

5. By virtue of the integrative faculty, two syntactic corrections were made in Articles 19 and 25, which are highlighted and at the same time highlighted in bold, as: In article 19, the word The and in the article 25: degree of drunkenness.

Article 19. Article 102 of Law 769 of 2002, will remain so:

Article 102. Debris handling. Each municipality will determine the place or places authorized for the final disposal of the debris occurring in its jurisdiction, the handling of these materials will be duly isolated preventing it from spreading through the tracks and in accordance with the current environmental regulations, under the responsibility of the holder of the permit granted by the transit authority who will be responsible for surveillance control compliance with the standard, without prejudice to the determination of liability for the damage to public goods.

The non-compliance with this rule will be sanctioned with a fine of thirty (30) smldv.

PARAGRAFO. It will be sanctioned with a fine of (30) smldv, who transporting mineral aggregates such as sand, crushed or concrete, does not perfectly isolate the load and allows it to spread through public roads, putting at risk the safety of others. vehicles.

Article 25. Article 152 of Law 769 of 2002, will remain so.

Article 152. Degree of alcoholemia. In a term not exceeding 30 days from the date of issue of this law, the National Institute of Legal Medicine and Forensic Sciences by resolution shall establish the limits of the different degrees of state of the drunkenness.

If the alcohol test is done, it is established:

Second degree of drunkenness, in addition to the fine penalty, the suspension of the driving license between two (2) and three (3) years, and the obligation to carry out awareness, knowledge and consequences of the alcohol and drug addiction in rehabilitation centres duly authorised, for a minimum of forty (40) hours.

degree of drunkenness, to more than the penalty penalty, the suspension between three (3) and ten (10) years of the driving license will be decreed, and the obligation to conduct awareness, knowledge and the consequences of alcohol and drug addiction in duly authorised rehabilitation centres, for a minimum of 80 hours.

It will be a criterion to fix this sanction, the recidivism, causing harm to people or things because of the drunkenness or trying to escape.

PARAGRAFO 1o. The recidivism in a third degree of drunkenness will be causal to determine the final cancellation of the driving license.

PARAGRAFO 2o. The awareness certification will be indispensable for the delivery of the suspended driving license.

6. In exercise of the integrative faculty of the text of the Project, the text of article 24 of the bill is clarified, as follows:

Article 24. Article 136 of Law 769 of 2002, will remain so.

136. Reduction of the fine. Once the order of comparison has been issued, if the defendant accepts the commission of the infringement, he may without need of another administrative action, cancel fifty percent (50%) of the value of the fine within five days of the (b) order to compare, or you may cancel seventy-five percent (75%) of the value of the fine, if you pay within twenty days of the order of comparison. In either of these two events, you must necessarily attend a course on transit rules in the Comprehensive Care Center, where you will cancel twenty-five percent (25%) of the value of the fine, and the twenty-five (25%) or the fifty (50%) remaining, as the case may be, will pay it to the transit agency. If the breach is accepted, the breach is not paid on the given opportunities, the counter must cancel (100%) the value of the fine plus their corresponding moratorical interests.

If the defendant rejects the commission of the infringement, he must appear before the official in public hearing so that he will decree the necessary tests that are requested and the ones of his office that he considers useful. At the same hearing, if possible, the evidence shall be conducted and the defendant shall be punished or acquitted. If he is declared a contractor, he shall be given a hundred percent (100%) of the value of the fine provided for in this code.

If the defendant does not appear without fair cause within the following five (5) business days, the transit authority after 30 days of the alleged infringement will follow the process, understanding that it remains linked to it, failing in public hearing and notifying itself in strates.

Free transit agencies will be able to enter into agreements for the collection of fines and will be able to establish agreements with the banks for this purpose. Payment of the fine and the appearance may be made anywhere in the country.

PARAGRAFO 1o. In places where traffic inspections are in place, competent officials may impose on the infringer the appropriate sanction at the place and time where the violation has been committed in accordance with the law.

PARAGRAFO 2o. As of the entry into force of this law and for a period of twelve (12) months, all drivers who have pending payment of traffic violations, will be eligible for the 50% discount (50%) the value of the fine and the interest.

Of the honorable Representatives,

Gloria Stella Diaz Ortiz, Alonso Acosta Osio. Representatives to the House.

REDONE AND INTEGRATED TEXT OF BILL NUMBER 012 OF 2006 CAMARA, 087 OF 2007 SENATED

by which the 2002 Law 769 , National Transit Code, is reformed, and other provisions are dictated.

The Congress of Colombia

DECRETA:

Article 1o. Article 1or Law 769 of 2002, shall be as follows:

Article 1or. Application scope and principles. The rules of this Code govern throughout the national territory and regulate the movement of pedestrians, users, passengers, drivers, motorcyclists, cyclists, transit agents and vehicles on public or private roads, are open to the public, or on private roads that are internally circulated, as well as the performance and procedures of the transit authorities.

In development of the provisions of Article 24 of the Political Constitution, every Colombian has the right to move freely through the national territory, but he is subject to intervention and regulations of the authorities to guarantee the safety and comfort of the inhabitants, especially pedestrians and the physically and mentally handicapped, for the preservation of a healthy environment and the protection of the common use of space public.

It is up to the Ministry of Transport as the supreme transit authority to define, guide, monitor and inspect the implementation of national transit policy.

Transit authorities will promote the dissemination and knowledge of the provisions contained in this code.

The guiding principles of this code are user safety, mobility, quality, opportunity, coverage, freedom of access, full identification, free movement, education and decentralization.

Article 2o. Article 3or Law 769 of 2002, shall be as follows:

Article 3or. Transit authorities. For the purposes of this law, it should be understood that they are transit authorities, in their order, the following:

The Minister of Transport.

Governors and Mayors.

The departmental, municipal, or district transit agencies.

The National Police through the Transit and Transportation Directorate.

The Police Inspectors, the Transit Inspectors, Corregidores or whoever does their time in each territorial entity.

The General Superintendence of Ports and Transportation.

Military Forces to comply exclusively with paragraph 5 of this article.

The Transit and Transportation Agents.

PARAGRAFO 1o. Public or private entities to which certain transit functions are assigned to them by delegation or agreement shall constitute bodies supporting the transit authorities.

PARAGRAFO 2o. The national government may delegate to the transit agencies the functions which are the law of the Ministry of Transport.

PARAGRAFO 3o. The authorities, transit agencies, public or private entities that constitute support agencies shall be monitored and controlled by the Superintendence of Ports and Transportation.

PARAGRAFO 4o. The faculty of transit authority granted to the specialized bodies of the National Police will be exercised as a competition to prevent.

PARAGRAFO 5o. The Military Forces will be able to carry out the work of regulating traffic in those areas where there is no presence of a transit authority.

Article 3o. Article 5or Law 769 of 2002, shall be as follows:

Article 5or. Demarcation and road signs. The Ministry of Transport will regulate in a term not more than 60 days after the sanction of this law, the technical characteristics of the demarcation and signalling of all the road infrastructure and its application and compliance will be responsibility for each of the transit agencies in their respective jurisdiction.

PARAGRAFO 1o. The Ministry of Transport shall respect and host international conventions that have been signed or subscribed to in relation to the regulation of location, installation, demarcation and road signs.

PARAGRAFO 2o. Road information and urban signage must be made with vitrified, antivandalic material to ensure a minimum shelf life of 10 years and, where appropriate, retroreflective material.

Article 4o. Article 17 of Law 769 of 2002, will remain so:

< b > Item 17. Granting. The driving license shall be granted for the first time to those who meet all the requirements described in Article 19 of this code, by the public or private entity authorized for the purpose by the transit body in its respective jurisdiction.

The format of the driving licence shall be national only, for which the Ministry of Transport shall establish the technical information sheet for its preparation and the corresponding control mechanisms.

New driving licenses will contain at least the following data: full driver name, identification document number, footprint, blood type, date of birth, license category, restrictions, date of expedition and body that issued it.

Within the technical characteristics of the driving licences shall include, inter alia, a two-dimensional bar code or other electronic, magnetic or optical device with the data in the register allowing for the reading and updating of these. The new driving licences shall allow the transit agency to confront the identity of the respective holder in accordance with the applicable law on the matter, at no cost.

PARAGRAFO 1o. Who is currently the holder of a driving licence, which does not comply with the technical conditions laid down in this Article and in the regulations which the Ministry of Transport shall issue for that purpose, shall replace it in a the term of forty-eight (48) months counted from the enactment of this law, in accordance with the provisions of article 15 of Law 1005 of 2006. For this purpose, you must present peace and save for traffic violations and the certificate referred to in Article 19 of this code.

PARAGRAFO 2o. To ensure the free movement of licenses, transit agencies are authorized to discount, for one time, a sum equal to 1 minimum wage, current legal daily (smldv), for each license issued, of the resources that must be transferred to the Ministry of Transport by way of venal species.

Article 5o. Article 19 of Law 769 of 2002, will remain so:

Article 19. Requirements. You can obtain for the first time a driving license for vehicles that can demonstrate compliance with the following requirements:

For service vehicles other than public service:

1. Know how to read and write.

2. Be 16 years old.

3. Approve a theoretical-practical test of driving for private vehicles to be carried out by the transit agencies in accordance with the regulations issued by the Ministry of Transport, or to present a certificate of aptitude in driving granted by a car teaching centre duly approved by the Ministry of National Education in coordination with the Ministry of Transport.

4. Certificate of physical fitness, mental and motor coordination for driving issued by a driver's recognition centre enabled by the Ministry of Transport and duly accredited as a certification body for persons in the motor vehicle drivers ' area.

For public service vehicles:

The same requirements listed above, with the exception of the minimum age to be 18 years of age and of the theoretical and practical tests and of physical and mental fitness or the driving aptitude certificates issued to be referred to the driving of a public service vehicle.

PARAGRAFO 1o. In order to obtain the driving licence for the first time, or the recategorisation, renewal and endorsement of the licence, the physical, mental and motor-coordination fitness must be demonstrated to the transit authorities, making use of the driving licence. assessment of the required systematized and digitised technological means, which allow the measurement and evaluation within the ranges established by the Ministry of Transport according to the international parameters and limits, among others, vision and hearing orientation, visual acuity and campimetry, reaction times and recovery to the candiation, the coordination capacity between acceleration and braking, the person's integral motor coordination, the discrimination of colours and the horizontal and vertical phoria.

PARAGRAFO 2o. The Ministry of Transport shall regulate so that within up to 12 months the driver recognition centres comply with the requirements for qualification and accreditation.

PARAGRAFO 3o. The Ministry of Transport will regulate the costs of the examination, with reference to the current values, making annual adjustments up to the consumer price index, CPI.

Article 6o. Article 22 of Law 769 of 2002, will remain so:

Article 22. Driving License Vigency. Driving licences for service vehicles other than the public will have an indefinite effect. However, every five (5) years, the licence holder must endorse it, for which a further examination of physical, mental and motor-coordination fitness will be carried out, which will enable the required skills to be maintained. driving.

Driving licences for public service vehicles shall be valid for three (3) years, after which they shall be required to be endorsed, with a further examination of physical, mental and motor-coordination fitness, and the registration of information or certificate stating that it is up-to-date by way of payment of fines for infringements of the rules of transit, duly implemented.

PARAGRAFO. All public service drivers over sixty (60) years must endorse their driving licence annually, demonstrating by the respective examination, their physical, mental and motor coordination fitness. Similarly, every three (3) years will be done by the drivers of service other than the public, starting from the sixty-five (65) years of age.

Article 7o. Article 26 of Law 769 of 2002, will remain so:

Article 26. Suspend or cancel Causals. The driving license will be suspended:

1. At the disposal of the transit authorities, based on the temporary, physical or mental impossibility of driving, supported by a medical certificate or the examination of physical, mental or coordination fitness issued by a Centre for Recognition Legally enabled drivers.

2. By judicial decision.

3. To be in a state of drunkenness or under the effect of hallucinogenic drugs determined by the competent authority in accordance with the provisions of Article 152 of this code.

4. For the provision of public transport services with private vehicles, except where the public order justifies it, subject to such a decision by the respective authority.

Driving license will be canceled:

1. At the disposal of the transit authorities based on the permanent physical or mental impossibility to drive, supported by a medical certificate or the physical, mental and motor-coordination fitness test issued by a centre of legally-enabled driver recognition.

2. By judicial decision.

3. By death of the holder. The National Registry of the Civil State is obliged to report to the systems created by Articles 8o and 10 of this order, the death of the owner.

4. Recidivism upon finding driving in any degree of drunkenness or under the effect of hallucinogenic drugs determined by competent authority, in accordance with Article 152 of this code.

5. For recidivism in the provision of public transport service with private vehicles without fair cause.

6. For making use of the driving license being suspended.

7. For obtaining by means of fraudulent means the issue of a driving licence, without prejudice to the corresponding criminal actions.

PARAGRAFO. The suspension or cancellation of the driving license involves the mandatory delivery of the document to the competent transit authority to impose the penalty for the period of the suspension or from the cancellation of it.

The notification of the suspension or cancellation of the driving license shall be made in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Administrative Contentious Code.

Three years after the cancellation, the driver will be able to reapply for a new driving license.

Article 8o. Article 28 of Law 769 of 2002 will thus remain:

Article 28. Pollutant and operational emissions technical conditions. For a vehicle to be able to transit through the national territory, it must ensure at least a perfect brake operation, the steering system, the suspension system, the system of visual and audible signals allowed and the gas exhaust system; and demonstrate an adequate state of rims, the set of safety glasses and mirrors and comply with the pollutant emission standards that environmental authorities establish.

PARAGRAFO 1o. The transit authorities shall exercise in public transport service vehicles, a check and verification of the proper functioning and calibration of the devices used for charging in the provision of a public service.

PARAGRAFO 2o. The Superintendence of Ports and Transportation, will contract the services of a call center, which will be under its surveillance, inspection and control, by which any person will be able to report the commission of traffic violations, or the violation of the regime of sanctions by the public service companies of automotive land transport. Calls will have no cost. The costs of this service will be borne by the public service companies of motor transport in proportion to the number of vehicles linked.

For this purpose, public and official service vehicles must be required to carry a visible warning both inside and outside, in which the telephone number corresponding to the call center is pointed out. indicated.

Public service vehicles must also be marked on the sides and on the roof, the number of the plate according to the rules of the Ministry of Transport.

The obligations provided for in this article and the hiring of the call center services shall be implemented in a term not greater than one (1) year counted from the date of enactment of this law.

Article 9o. Chapter VIII of Title II of Law 769 , 2002, will be as follows:

CHAPTER VIII

Technical-mechanical review and pollutant emissions

Article 10. Article 50 of Law 769 of 2002, will remain so:

Article 50. Mechanical, environmental, and security conditions. For reasons of road safety and environmental protection, the owner or holder of the vehicle of national or foreign plates, transiting through the national territory, will have the obligation to maintain it in optimum mechanical conditions, environmental and security.

Article 11. Article 51 of Law 769 of 2002, will remain so:

Article 51. Periodic review of vehicles. All motor vehicles must be subject to technical-mechanical and pollutant emissions annually. Vehicles of particular service shall be subject to such review every two years (2) years during their first six (6) years from the date of their registration; motorcycles shall do so annually.

The review will be intended to verify:

1. The proper status of the bodywork.

2. Emission levels of gases and pollutants in accordance with current legislation on the matter.

3. The smooth operation of the mechanical system.

4. Proper operation of the electrical system and the optical assembly.

5. Efficiency of the internal combustion system.

6. Security items.

7. Good condition of the brake system, especially in the case where it operates with air, which does not emit acoustic signals above the permitted levels.

8. The tires of the vehicle.

9. The operation of the emergency systems and elements.

10. The proper functioning of the devices used for charging in the provision of the public service.

Article 12. Article 52 of Law 769 of 2002, will remain so:

Article 52. First review of automotive vehicles. New vehicles shall be subject to the first technical-mechanical and pollutant emission review when they comply with two (2) years from their date of registration.

PARAGRAFO. The automotive vehicles of foreign plates, which will temporarily enter and for up to three (3) months in the country, will not require technical-mechanical and pollutant emissions.

Article 13. Article 53 of Law 769 of 2002, will remain so:

Article 53. Automotive diagnostic centers. The technical-mechanical and pollutant emission review shall be carried out in legally constituted automotive diagnostic centres which have the conditions to be determined by the regulations issued by the Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of the Environment in terms of its powers. The Ministry of Transport will enable these centers, which will have to be recognized in the National System of Standardization, Certification and Metrology by crediting themselves as an inspection body.

The requirements, procedures, tests, personnel, equipment, tests and minimum information systems to be accredited by the automotive diagnostic center, to obtain the aforementioned accreditation will be stipulated by the Superintendence of Industry and Trade, with scope to the provisions of the regulations of the Ministry of Transport.

The results of the technical-mechanical and pollutant emissions review will be recorded in a uniform document whose characteristics will be determined by the Ministry of Transport. For the review of the vehicle, only the presentation of its transit licence and the relevant compulsory insurance shall be required.

PARAGRAFO 1o. Who does not carry such a document will incur the penalties provided for in the law. For all legal effects this will be considered as a public document.

Article 14. Article 54 of Law 769 of 2002, will remain so:

Article 54. Computer record. The automotive diagnostic centres shall keep a computerized record of the results of the technical-mechanical and pollutant emission reviews of each vehicle, including those which do not approve it.

Article 15. Article 76 of Law 769 of 2002, will remain so:

Article 76. Places prohibited for parking. It is prohibited to park vehicles at the following locations:

On platforms, green areas or on public space for pedestrians, recreation or conservation.

In arteries, highways, safety zones, or within a crosswalk.

On main and collector routes in which the prohibition or restriction in relation to schedules or types of vehicles is expressly stated.

On bridges, viaducts, tunnels, low passes, elevated structures, or any of the accesses to these.

In areas expressly intended for parking or stopping of certain types of vehicles, including public service vehicle stops, or for limited physical vehicles.

In lanes dedicated to bulk transport without authorization.

A distance greater than thirty (30) centimeters from the sidewalk.

In double row of parked vehicles, or in front of hydrants and garage entries.

In curves.

Where to interfere with the output of parked vehicles.

Where transit authorities prohibit it.

In the area of safety and protection of the railway, on the main road, secondary roads, parks, stations and railway annexations.

Non-compliance with this rule will be sanctioned with thirty (30) daily minimum legal wages in force, smldv.

Article 16. Article 91 of Law 769 of 2002, will remain so:

91. Of the Bakers. Every driver of a public service vehicle for automotive land transport must pick up or leave passengers exclusively on the sites permitted by the competent authorities and in accordance with the routes and schedules, as the case may be.

Failure to comply with this rule will be sanctioned with thirty (30) smldv, the public service companies to which such vehicles are linked will be jointly and severally liable for the payment of the fine.

Article 17. Article 93 of Law 769 of 2002, will remain so:

Article 93. Driver violation control. The transit agencies shall report on a daily basis to the Integrated System of Multas and Sanctions for traffic violations the violations imposed, in turn, as and as the National Register of National RUNT Transit.

PARAGRAFO 1o. The Superintendence of Ports and Transportation will penalize with a fine equivalent to one hundred minimum monthly legal salaries in force (100 smlmv) to the public transport companies of the automotive, which have in exercise to drivers with suspended or cancelled driving license.

PARAGRAFO 2o. Auto-land public transport companies will be required to establish control and monitoring programs for drivers ' traffic violations to their service. This program will have to be sent monthly by the public transportation companies automotive to the Superintendence of Ports and Transportation. Companies that do not comply with the above will be sanctioned by that entity with a fine equivalent to one hundred current monthly legal minimum wages (100 smlmv).

Article 18. The 2002 Act 769 , will have the following new article:

Article 93-1. Solidarity for fines. They shall be jointly and severally liable for the payment of fines for traffic offences by the owner and the undertaking to which the vehicle is linked, in those offences attributable to the owners or to the undertakings.

Article 19. Article 102 of Law 769 of 2002, will remain so:

Article 102. Handling debris. Each municipality shall determine the place (s) approved for the final disposal of the debris occurring within its jurisdiction, the handling of these materials shall be made duly isolated preventing it from spreading through the tracks and in accordance with the applicable environmental regulations, under the responsibility of the holder of the permit granted by the transit authority, who shall be responsible for monitoring compliance with the standard, without prejudice to the liability for damage to public goods. Failure to comply with this rule will be punishable by a fine of thirty (30) smldv.

PARAGRAFO. It will be sanctioned with a fine of (30) smldv, who transporting mineral aggregates such as: sand, crushed or concrete, does not perfectly isolate the load and allows it to spread through the public roads, putting at risk the safety of others vehicles.

Article 20. Article 122 of Law 769 of 2002, will remain so:

122. Sanctions Types. The penalties for violations of this code are:

1. Warning.

2. Fine.

3. Preventive retention of the driving license.

4. Suspension of the driving licence.

5. Suspension or cancellation of the permit or registration.

6. Immobilization of the vehicle.

7. Preventive restraint of the vehicle.

8. Final cancellation of the driving licence.

The penalties mentioned in this article will be imposed as principal or ancillary to the person responsible for the infringement, regardless of the environmental sanctions to which there is a violation of any of the regulations, prohibitions and restrictions on pollutant emissions and noise generation from mobile sources.

PARAGRAFO 1o. The following sanctions shall be imposed by the respective transit authorities on the Commission on Environmental Infraactions:

1. Fine equivalent to thirty (30) daily minimum legal wages.

2. Suspension of the driving licence for up to six (6) months, for the second time, in addition to a fine equal to that provided for in the numeral 1, if the driver is the owner of the vehicle.

3. Revocation or revocation of the driving licence for the third time, in addition to a fine equal to that provided for in the numeral 1, if the driver is the owner of the vehicle.

4. Immobilisation of the vehicle, which shall be without prejudice to the imposition of the other penalties.

In cases of infringement of the prohibitions on devices or accessories generating noise, on sirens and alarms, the same as on the use of the silencer will proceed to the immediate immobilization of the vehicle, without prejudice to the other penalties to be applied.

When the prohibitions, restrictions or regulations on pollutant emissions are violated by motor vehicles, the following procedure will be followed:

The traffic monitoring agent that detects or warns of a violation of the emission standards for pollutants or noise generation by motor vehicles, will deliver to the alleged infringer a quotation ballot for the vehicle to be presented in a diagnostic centre for a technical inspection in a term which may not exceed fifteen (15) days. The citation will indicate the mode of the alleged infringement that causes it. This is without prejudice to the validity of the certificate of compulsory technical-mechanical and gas review.

The technical inspection and thus determined the nature of the offence, the diagnostic centre where the offence was practised, will give the alleged infringer a copy of the result of the examination carried out on the vehicle and forward the original to the competent transit authority, so that, after hearing the person concerned, the sanction imposed in each case shall be imposed.

In case the offender cited does not present the vehicle for the practice of the inspection visit at the date and time indicated, except for proven force majeure or fortuitous case, the fines to be increased up to the double and the vehicle may be immobilized by the respective transit authority, until the infringer ensures by means of the vehicle repair.

Practiced the technical inspection, the infringer will have a term of fifteen (15) days to repair the vehicle and correct the fault that has been detected in the diagnostic center and must present it, before the expiration of this new (a) the term of office for a new inspection in order to determine that the defects of the vehicle, which cause the infringement of the environmental standards, have been corrected. If the deadline is expired and the new revision is carried out, if the vehicle does not meet the standards or is caught in circulation on the public road, it will be immobilized.

When the transit authority detects an ostensible and serious violation of environmental standards, it may order the offender to immediately review the vehicle in an approved diagnostic center for inspection practice. technique.

If the roadworthiness test is established that the vehicle complies with environmental standards, there will be no enforcement of fines.

The vehicles powered by gasoline engines are exempt from technical inspection during the first three (3) months of the mobilization certificate, unless they are in flagrant and ostensible violation of the rules. environmental.

There shall be no technical inspection in cases of violation of environmental standards by emission of dust, particles, or fumes from the discovered load of motor vehicles.

In such a case, the transit agent shall order the arrest of the vehicle and shall provide the offender with a comparison or a summons to appear before the competent transit authority, to a hearing on which it shall be decided on the imposition of the of the sanction to be applied.

Transit agents may freeze up to twenty-four (24) hours, and must inform the competent transit authority, the vehicles that cause fugitive emissions from the discovered load, until they are taken by the infringer the appropriate measures to prevent such emissions, without prejudice to the application of the other penalties that apply.

PARAGRAFO 2o. For the purposes of this code, and unless otherwise provided, the fine should be understood to be established in current legal minimum wages.

Article 21. Article 131 of Law 769 of 2002, will remain so:

Article 131. Multas. Violators of the transit rules will be penalized with the imposition of fines, according to the type of violation thus:

A. The driver of a non-motor vehicle or animal traction vehicle that incurs any of the following offences shall be fined equivalent to four (4) daily minimum statutory wages:

A. 1 Do not transition to the right of the path.

A. 2 Agate from another vehicle in circulation.

A. 3 Transporting people or things that decrease their visibility and make driving uncomfortable.

A. 4 Transition by platforms and other places for pedestrian traffic.

A. 5 Do not respect the traffic signals.

A. 6 Transition without the required light devices.

A. 7 Transient without devices that allow immediate or stop-stopping, but in the defective state.

A. 8 Transiting by prohibited zones.

A. 9 Forward between two (2) automotive vehicles that are in their respective lanes.

A. 10 Drive through the railway or through protection and security zones.

A. 11 Transition by restricted zones or high-speed tracks such as motorways and arteries, in this case the non-automotive vehicle will be immobilized.

A. 12 Public service with this type of vehicle. In addition, the vehicle shall be immobilised for the first time, for the term of five days, for the second time twenty days and for the third time forty days.

B. The driver and/or owner of an automotive vehicle that incurs any of the following offences shall be fined equivalent to eight (8) current minimum statutory wages.

B. 1 Drive a vehicle without taking the driving license.

B. 2 Drive a vehicle with the expired driving license.

B. 3 No plates, or no valid permit issued by transit authority.

B. 4 With adulterated plates.

B. 5 With a single plate, or without the current permit issued by a transit authority.

B. 6 With false plates.

In these cases vehicles will be immobilized.

B. 7 Failure to inform the competent transit authority of the change of engine or color of a vehicle.

In both cases, the vehicle will be immobilized.

B. 8 Do not pay the toll at established sites.

B. 9 Use sound equipment to volumes that make it uncomfortable for passengers in a public service vehicle.

B. 10 Driving a vehicle with polarized, inked or obscured glass, without carrying the respective permit, in accordance with the existing regulations on the matter.

B. 11 Driving a vehicle with propaganda, advertising, or adhesives in its windows that hinder visibility.

B. 12 Do not respect the rules established by the competent authority for the transit of funeral services.

B. 13 Do not respect the formation of troops, the march of parades, processions, burials, student rows and public demonstrations and sports activities, duly authorized by the transit authorities.

B. 14 Remolate another vehicle violating the provisions of this code.

B. 15 Driving a public service vehicle that does not carry the notice of official fares in conditions of easy reading for passengers or to possess this deteriorated or adulterated notice.

B. 16 Allow animals or objects that make passengers uncomfortable in a public service vehicle for the carriage of passengers.

B. 17 Abandon a public service vehicle with passengers.

B. 18 Driving an individual public passenger transport vehicle without complying with the provisions of this code.

B. 19 Perform the loading or unloading of a vehicle on sites and hours prohibited by the competent authorities, in accordance with the provisions of the relevant rules.

B. 20 Transporting easily corrupt meat, fish or food into vehicles that do not meet the conditions set by the Ministry of Transport.

B. 21 Wash vehicles on public roads, in rivers, in canals and in broken water.

B. 22 Take children under ten (10) years in the front seat.

B. 23 Use radios, sound equipment, or amplification to volumes that exceed the maximum decibels set by environmental authorities. In the same way, use screens, image projectors or the like on the front of the vehicles, while on the move.

C. The driver and/or owner of an automotive vehicle that incurs any of the following violations shall be fined equivalent to fifteen (15) current minimum legal wages.

C. 1 Present adulterated or alien driving license, which will result in immobilization of the vehicle.

C. 2 Parking a vehicle on prohibited sites.

C. 3 Lock a driveway or intersection with a vehicle, except when the blockage is due to the occurrence of a traffic accident.

C. 4 Parking a vehicle without taking proper precautions or without placing at the distance indicated by this code, the signs of regulatory danger.

C. 5 Do not reduce the speed as indicated by this code, when transiting through a school crossing in the schedules and working days of the educational institution. Likewise, when transiting through hospital crossings or passenger terminals.

C. 6 Do not use the seat belt by the occupants of the vehicle.

C. 7 Stop signaling with the directional lights or by hand signals and with due anticipation, the turn or turn of the lane.

C. 8 Transiting without the required light devices or without the elements determined in this code.

C. 9 Do not respect the signs of arrest at the crossing of a railway line, or drive through the railway or through the protection and safety zones of the railway.

C. 10 Drive a vehicle with one or more open doors.

C. 11 Do not carry the prevention and safety equipment set out in this code or in the appropriate regulations.

C. 12 Fuel provider a motor vehicle with the engine on.

C. 13 Driving an automotive vehicle without the appropriate adaptations, when the driver suffers from physical limitation.

C. 14 Transiting by restricted sites or hours prohibited by the competent authority. In addition, the vehicle shall be fixed.

C. 15 Driving a vehicle, private or public service, exceeding the authorized capacity in the transit or operating license license.

C. 16 Driving a school vehicle without the respective permit or statutory flags, in addition the vehicle shall be immobilized.

C. 17 Circular with combinations of vehicles of two (2) or more towed units, without special authority of competent authority.

C. 18 Driving an authorized vehicle to provide public service with the damaged taximeter, with broken seals or adhesive labels with expired or adulterated calibration or when it is lacking, or when still having it, does not comply with the standards minimum quality and safety required by the competent authority or the competent authority is not in operation and the vehicle shall be immobilised.

C. 19 Leave or pick up passengers on sites other than those demarcated by the authorities.

C. 20 Driving a cargo vehicle in which construction or bulk materials are transported without the protective, hygiene and safety measures ordered. In addition, the vehicle shall be fixed.

C. 21 Do not secure the load to prevent the transported things from falling on the track. In addition, the vehicle shall be immobilised until the situation is remedied.

C. 22 Transport load of dimensions greater than those authorized without meeting the required requirements. In addition, the vehicle shall be fixed until such situation is remedied.

C. 23 Imparting on public roads to the public teaching practice to drive, without being authorized to do so.

C. 24 Driving motorcycle without observing the rules set out in this code.

C. 25 Transition, when there is more than one lane, to the left lane of the track at speed that hinders the transit of the other vehicles.

C. 26 Transiting in vehicles of 3.5 or more tons down the left lane of the track when there is more than one lane.

C. 27 Driving a vehicle whose load or passengers obstruct the visibility of the driver to the front, rear or side, or prevent control over the steering, brake or safety system. In addition, the vehicle shall be fixed.

C. 28 Make use of own devices of emergency vehicles, by drivers of other types of vehicles.

C. 29 Driving a vehicle at top speed to the maximum allowed.

C. 30 Do not take care of a step.

C. 31 Do not abide by the signals or requirements imposed by the transit agents.

C. 32. Do not respect the passing of pedestrians crossing a path in place allowed for them or not to give them the prelation in the slots for it established.

C. 33 Putting a vehicle in motion without the precautions to avoid shocks.

C. 34 Repair a vehicle on public roads, park or sidewalk, or do so in case of emergency, without addressing the procedure outlined in this code.

C. 35 Do not carry out the technical-mechanical review within the prescribed legal period or when the vehicle is not in suitable technical-mechanical or pollutant emission conditions, even when carrying the corresponding certificates, vehicle shall be fixed.

C. 36 Transport cargo into containers without special fastening devices. The vehicle shall be fixed.

C. 37 Transporting passengers on the platon of a pickup truck or on the platform of a cargo vehicle, whether they are a van or a platform of stakes.

C. 38 Use mobile communication systems or phones installed in vehicles at the time of driving, except if they are used with accessories or auxiliary equipment to allow the hands to be free.

C. 39. Violate the parking rules contained in article 77 of this code.

D. The driver and/or owner of an automotive vehicle that incurs any of the following offences shall be fined equivalent to thirty (30) current minimum statutory wages.

D. 1 Guiding a vehicle without having obtained the corresponding driving license. In addition, the vehicle shall be immobilized on the spot, until it is removed by a person authorised by the offender with a driving licence.

D. 2 Driving without carrying insurance ordered by law. In addition, the vehicle shall be fixed.

D. 3 Transient to the contrary to the stipulated for the track, road or rail. In the case of motorcycles, the immobilization shall be carried out until the value of the fine is paid or the competent authority decides on its imposition in the terms of Articles 135 and 136 of the National Transit Code.

D. 4 Do not stop at a red or yellow light light, a sign of PARE? or a flashing red light. In the case of motorcycles, the immobilization shall be carried out until the value of the fine is paid or the competent authority decides on its imposition in the terms of Articles 135 and 136 of the National Transit Code.

D. 5 Driving a vehicle on sidewalks, plazas, pedestrian paths, separators, berms, channelling demarcations, green areas or special routes for non-motorized vehicles. In the case of motorcycles, the immobilization shall be carried out until the value of the fine is paid or the competent authority decides on its imposition in the terms of Articles 135 and 136 of the National Transit Code.

D. 6 Forward to another vehicle in berm, tunnel, bridge, curve, level steps and unregulated crossings or approaching the top of a slope or where the corresponding traffic signal indicates. In the case of motorcycles, the immobilization shall be carried out until the value of the fine is paid or the competent authority decides on its imposition in the terms of Articles 135 and 136 of the National Transit Code.

D. 7 Driving highly dangerous and irresponsible maneuvers that endanger people or things. In the case of motorcycles, the immobilization shall be carried out until the value of the fine is paid or the competent authority decides on its imposition in the terms of Articles 135 and 136 of the National Transit Code.

D. 8 Driving a vehicle without lights or the light, directional or brake devices, or with any of them damaged, in the hours or circumstances required by this code. In addition, the vehicle shall be immobilised, when two (2) or more of these lamps are not operated.

D. 9 Not to allow the passage of emergency vehicles.

D. 10 Driving a vehicle for school transportation with speeding.

D. 11 Allow the public passenger service that does not have the required emergency exits. In this case, the fine will be imposed jointly and severally on the company to which it is affiliated and the owner. In the case of a particular vehicle, the penalty shall be imposed jointly and severally on the owner.

D. 12 Driving a vehicle that, without proper authorization, is intended for a service other than that for which it has a transit license. In addition, the vehicle shall be immobilised for the first time, for the term of five days, for the second time twenty days and for the third time forty days.

D. 13 In the case of carrying cargo with a weight higher than the authorized vehicle, the vehicle shall be immobilized and the excess must be transhipped.

D. 14 The transit authorities shall order the immediate immobilization of vehicles that use for their mobilization non-regulated fuels such as propane gas or other vehicles that endanger the lives of users or pedestrians.

D. 15 Change of the route or route of the route for a public passenger transport service vehicle, approved by the relevant transit agency. In this case, the fine shall be imposed jointly and severally on the undertaking to which the vehicle and the owner are affiliated. In addition, the vehicle shall be fixed, except for cases of force majeure which are duly authorised by the transit agent.

E. It will be sanctioned with a fine equivalent to forty-five (45) daily legal minimum wages in force for the driver and/or owner of an automotive vehicle that incurs any of the following violations:

E. 1. Provide fuel to public service vehicles with passengers on board.

E. 2 Refuse to provide the public service without justified cause, provided that such refusal causes disruption of public order.

E. 3. Driving in a state of drunkenness or under the effects of hallucinogenic substances will be treated as set out in article 152 of this code. In the case of drivers of public service vehicles, school transport or driving instructor drivers, the pecuniary fine and the period of suspension of the licence shall be doubled. In all cases of drunkenness the vehicle will be immobilized and the state of drunkenness or alcoholemia will be established by a test that does not cause injury, which will be determined by the Institute of Legal Medicine and Forensic Sciences.

E. 4. Transport in the same vehicle and at the same time persons and dangerous substances such as explosives, toxic, radioactive, unauthorised fuels, etc. In these cases the license will be suspended for one (1) year and for two (2) years each time it reoccurs. The vehicle shall be fixed by one (1) year each time.

Article 22. Article 135 of Law 769 of 2002, will remain so:

Article 135. Procedure. Before the commission of a violation, the transit authority must follow the following procedure to impose the comparison:

Order to stop the running of the vehicle and extend to the driver the order of comparison in which it will order the offender to appear before the competent transit authority within five (5) working days. The driver will be given a copy of the order of comparison.

For the service in addition it will be mailed within three (3) working days following copy of the comparison to the owner of the vehicle, to the company to which it is linked and to the Superintendence of Ports and Transport for the competence.

The order of comparison must be signed by the driver, as long as this is possible. If the driver refuses to sign or present the licence, he or she shall sign a witness, which shall be fully identified with the number of his citizenship or passport card, address of address and telephone if he has it.

However, the competent authorities may contract the service of technical and technological means that permit evidence of the commission of violations or violations, the vehicle, the date, the place and the time. In such a case, it will be sent by mail within three (3) working days following the infringement and its supports to the owner who will be obliged to pay the fine. For the public service it will also be sent by mail within this same term copy of the comparison and its supports to the company to which it is linked and to the Superintendence of Ports and Transport for that of its competence.

The Ministry of Transport will determine the technical characteristics of the national single comparison form, as well as its delivery system. The driver shall indicate to the driver that he shall have the right to appoint a proxy if he so wishes and that the evidence he requests shall be issued or carried out at the hearing for which he is summoned. The comparison shall also provide the space to record the address of the defendant or the witness who has subscribed to it.

PARAGRAFO 1o. The transit authority shall deliver to the competent official or the entity that the transit authority has for its collection, within the next twelve (12) hours, the copy of the order of comparison, in the cause of misconduct.

When dealing with highway police officers, the delivery of this copy will be done through the route commander or the service director commander.

PARAGRAFO 2o. Transit agencies may enter into contracts or agreements with public or private entities in order to implement the principles of speed and efficiency in the collection of fines.

Article 23. Chapter IV of Title IV Sanctions and Procedures of Law 769 of 2002, will remain so:

CHAPTER IV

Take Action in Case of Compare Imposition

Article 24. Article 136 of Law 769 of 2002, will remain so.

Article 136. Reduction of the fine. Once the order of comparison has been issued, if the defendant accepts the commission of the infringement, he may need no other action administrative, cancel fifty percent (50%) of the value of the fine within five days of the order of comparison, or you may cancel seventy-five percent (75%) of the value of the fine, if you pay within twenty days following the order of comparison. In any of these two events, you will need to attend a course on transit rules in the Integral Care Centre, where you will cancel twenty-five percent (25%) of the value of the fine, and twenty-five (25%) or fifty (50%) remaining, as the case may be, to pay the transit agency. If the breach is accepted, the infringement is not paid on the given opportunities, the counter must cancel (100%) the value of the fine plus its corresponding moratorical interests.

If the defendant rejects the commission of the infringement, he must appear before the official in public hearing so that he will decree the necessary tests that are requested and the ones of his office that he considers useful. At the same hearing, if possible, the evidence shall be conducted and the defendant shall be punished or acquitted. If he is declared a contractor, he shall be charged one hundred per cent (100%) of the value of the fine provided for in this code.

If the defendant does not appear without fair cause within the following five (5) working days, the transit authority after 30 days of the alleged infringement will follow the process, understanding that it is linked to it, failing in public hearing and being notified in strates.

Free transit agencies will be able to enter into agreements for the collection of fines and will be able to establish agreements with the banks for this purpose. Payment of the fine and the appearance may be made anywhere in the country.

PARAGRAFO 1o. In places where traffic traffic inspections are in place, competent officials may impose the corresponding penalty on the offender at the place and time where the offence was committed. respecting the right of defence.

PARAGRAFO 2o. As from the entry into force of this law and for a period of twelve (12) months, all drivers who have pending payment of traffic offences, will be eligible for the 50% discount (50%) of the value of the fine and interest.

Article 25. Article 152 of Law 769 of 2002, will remain so.

Article 152. Degree of alcoholemia. In a term not exceeding 30 days from the date of issue of this law, the National Institute of Legal Medicine and Forensic Sciences by resolution shall establish the limits of the different degrees of state of the drunkenness.

If the alcohol test is done, it is established:

Second degree of drunkenness, in addition to the fine penalty, the suspension of the driving license between two (2) and three (3) years, and the obligation to carry out awareness, knowledge and consequences of the alcohol and drug addiction in rehabilitation centres duly authorised, for a minimum of forty (40) hours.

Third degree of drunkenness, to more than the penalty of fine, the suspension between three (3) and ten (10) years of the driving licence will be decreed, and the obligation to carry out awareness course, knowledge and consequences of the alcoholemia and drug addiction in duly authorized rehabilitation centers, for a minimum of eighty (80) hours.

It will be a criterion to fix this sanction, the recidivism, causing harm to people or things because of the drunkenness or trying to escape.

PARAGRAFO 1o. The recidivism in a third degree of drunkenness, will be causal to determine the definitive cancellation of the driving license.

PARAGRAFO 2o. The awareness certification will be indispensable for the delivery of the suspended driving license.

Article 26. Article 159 of Law 769 of 2002, will remain so.

Article 159. Compliance. The execution of the penalties imposed for violation of the transit rules, will be carried out by the authorities of transit of the jurisdiction where the fact was committed, who will be invested with coactive jurisdiction for the recovery, where necessary and prescribe in three years from the occurrence of the event and shall be interrupted by the filing of the application.

The transit authorities must establish publicly by the month of January each year, plans and programs aimed at the recovery of these sanctions and within this same period they will render public accounts on the execution of the same.

PARAGRAFO 1o. The transit authorities may contract the collection of the fines imposed by the commission of traffic offences.

PARAGRAFO 2o. The fines shall be the exclusive property of the transit agencies where the infringement was committed in accordance with their jurisdiction. The amount of those fines imposed on the national roads, by the National Police of Colombia, assigned to the Transportation and Transportation Directorate, will be distributed 50% for the municipality where the For the National Police Transit and Transportation Directorate, for the training of its assigned personnel, education and road safety plans that this specialty along the network will be. national road, locations that plan the needs of the service and the construction of the School of Road Safety of the National Police.

Article 27. Law 769 , 2002, will have the following transitional article:

Transient article. The faculty of the municipal and district governors and mayors, until December 31, 2009, to decree amnesties to traffic offenders and to adopt measures for the consolidation of the portfolio of infractions that have not been the purpose of notification of the payment order by way of business and not exceed five (5) years of the events which gave rise to the action.

Article 28. This law governs from its enactment and repeals all provisions that are contrary to it.

Of the honorable Representatives,

Gloria Stella Diaz Ortiz, Alonso Acosta Osio, Representatives to the House.

3.1.4. New announcement and vote of the report in Plenary

In the Gazette of Congress number 1011 of 2009 is published the Minutes of Plenary Session number 198 of August 19, 2009, in which the announcement was made prior to the vote and approval of the text remade of the Bill of law. The text is as follows:

" Deputy Secretary General, Dr. Flor Marina Daza Ramírez.

The following projects are announced for the Plenary Session of August 25 or for the next Plenary Session in which bills or legislative acts are discussed.

Bill 012 of 2006 House, 087 of 2007 Senate, for which the law 769 of 2002, published in the Gazette of Congress number 741 of 2009 is reformed.

At the 989 Congress Gazette of 2009 is published the Plenary Session Act No. 199 of August 25, 2009, during which the Redone and Integrated Text of the Bill was approved. The vote was as follows:

" Secretary General Dr. Jesus Alfonso Rodriguez C. reports:

The record is closed, by SI 107, by NO 2. The redone text report has been approved.

Similarly, the General Secretariat (e) of the House of Representatives certified that the Plenary Session of 25 August 2009 was made up of one hundred and sixty (160) representatives, and that a nominal vote was taken as follows: "By Yes: 107; by No: 2".

3.2. Senate of the Republic

On August 4, 2009, members of the Accidental Commission filed the respective report, as published in the Gazette of Congress number 713 on August 11, 2009.

As for the pre-vote announcement of the redone and integrated text, it has to be done during the ordinary session on Tuesday, 22 September 2009, in accordance with the Minutes of Plenary Number 10, published in the 987 Congress-Gazette of 1or October 2009:

" On the instructions of the Presidency and in accordance with Legislative Act 01 of 2003, the Secretariat announces the projects to be discussed and approved at the next session.

Mr. President, the following are the announcements of the Projects for the next session:

Text of Bill 087 of 2007 Senate, 012 of 2006 House, by which the Law 769 of 2002, National Transit Code, is reformed, and other provisions are dictated.

Now, as for the redone text vote, the Secretary General of the Senate certifies the following:

" The discussion and approval of the text redone according to Minutes number 11 of 29 September 2009. The vote was 51 votes for the YES and 3 for NO for a total of 54 votes; consequently, the bill was approved as stated in the report on the substantiation of the Law Office of the Senate of the Republic. It is located in the National Printing Press in Prepress for publication. "

4. Formal analysis of constitutionality

4.1. Examination of the procedure in the House of Representatives

Once the procedure that took place in the House of Representatives was reviewed after the issuance of the C-321 judgment , it is noted that, although a procedural vice was presented, the procedure was sanitized.

Indeed, as explained, on day 4 August 2009, the members of the Accidental Commission formed to remake and integrate the text of Bill 012 of 2006 House, 087 of 2007 Senate, surrendered their Report to the President of that Corporation.

On 5, 2009, as stated in the Plenary Act number 194 of the same date, published in the Gazette of Congress number 889 of 2009, was announced the vote in Plenary, for day 11 of August. That day, the Report of the Remade and Integrated Text was approved in Plenary.

On 13, 2009, following two requirements, the Minister of Transport proceeded to render the concept of rigour.

On 19, 2009, that is, after having voted favorably in plenary, the report of the Accidental Commission, the members of the latter, proceeded to submit a new report, arguing the next:

" This report is presented by second time, for the first time, the Minister of the Industry had not made his pronouncement, so it was impossible to take into account his observations at that time. Having surrendered its concept the Minister, by means of communication dated August 12 and based before this Corporation on August 13, it is now the Commission to present again the report of redone and integrated text ".

In the Gazette of Congress number 1011 of 2009 is published the Minutes of Plenary Session number 198 of August 19, 2009, in which the announcement was made prior to the vote and approval of the text remade of the Bill of law. The text is as follows:

" Deputy Secretary General, Dr. Flor Marina Daza Ramírez.

The following projects are announced for the Plenary Session of August 25 or for the next Plenary Session in which bills or legislative acts are discussed.

Bill 012 of 2006 House, 087 of 2007 Senate, for which reform of Law 769 of 2002, published in the Gazette of Congress number 741 of 2009 ".

At the 989 Congress Gazette of 2009 is published the "Plenary Session" Act No. 199 of August 25, 2009, during which the Redone and Integrated Text of the Bill of law. The vote was as follows:

" Secretary General Dr. Jesus Alfonso Rodriguez C. reports:

The record is closed, by SI 107, by NO 2. The redone text report has been approved.

Similarly, the General Secretariat (e) of the House of Representatives certified that the Plenary Session of 25 August 2009 was made up of one hundred and sixty (160) representatives, and that a nominal vote was taken as follows: "By Yes: 107; by No: 2".

Thus, it was evident that a procedural vice had been committed because the report was voted on to redo and integrate the text of the bill, without having previously heard the concept of the Minister of the Ramo. In this regard, the Constitution, in its article 167, prescribes:

" If the Court considers that the project is partially inexequable, it will indicate to the House that it had its origin so that, heard by the Minister of the Industry, it redoes and integrates the affected provisions in concordant terms with the opinion of the Court. Upon completion of this procedure, the project will be referred to the Court for a final ruling.

Now, once the aforementioned vice has been detected, the House of Representatives proceeded to repeat the act, that is to say, the report was delivered, the vote was announced and it was carried out as it had been announced.

Thus, the Court concludes that the procedure that took place in the House of Representatives is in accordance with the Constitution.

4.2. Examination of the procedure in the Senate of the Republic

Once the procedure that took place in the Senate of the Republic has been reviewed, after the issue of the C-321 judgment it is found that no procedural vice was presented.

In effect, as published in the Gazette of Congress number 713 of 11, 2009, the senators knew the report prepared by the members of the Accidental Commission in charge of redoing and integrate the text of the bill.

Later, during the ordinary session on Tuesday, September 22, 2009, pursuant to the Plenary Act No. 10, published in the Congressional Gazette number 987 on October 1, 2009, the Voting announcement, in the following terms:

" On the instructions of the Presidency and in accordance with Legislative Act 01 of 2003, the Secretariat announces the projects to be discussed and approved at the next session.

Mr. President, the following are the announcements of the Projects for the next session:

Text of Bill 087 of 2007 Senate, 012 of 2006 House, by which the Law 769 of 2002 is reformed National Transit Code, and other provisions are dictated.

Now, as for the redone text vote, the Secretary General of the Senate certifies the following:

" The discussion and approval of the text redone according to Minutes number 11 of 29 September 2009. The vote was 51 votes for the YES and 3 for NO for a total of 54 votes; consequently, the bill was approved as stated in the report on the substantiation of the Law Office of the Senate of the Republic. It is located in the National Printing Press in Prepress for publication. "

5. Material analysis of constitutionality

5.1. Sense and scope of 2009 C-321 statement

The Constitutional Court, in judgment C-321 of 2009, adopted three kinds of decisions, namely:

a) Presidential Objections declared unfounded

-Declare unfounded the presidential objection filed against paragraph 3 of Article 4 of the bill No. 012 of 2006 House, 087 of 2007 Senate, "For which the Law is reformed 769 2002 (National Transit Code) and other provisions are issued", and consequently, it is declared to be exequable.

-To declare unfounded the presidential objection filed against the number 4 of article 5 or paragraph 1 of article 13 of the bill number 012 of 2006 Chamber, 087 of 2007 Senate, " href="ley_0769_2002.html#1"> 769 2002 (National Transit Code) and other provisions are dictated", and consequently, is declared to be exequable.

-Declare unfounded the presidential objection filed against paragraph 2 of article 8o of the bill number 012 of 2006 House, 087 of 2007 Senate, "for which the Law is reformed 769 2002 (National Transit Code) and other provisions are issued", and consequently, it is declared to be exequable.

-Declare unfounded the presidential objection filed against paragraph 2o of article 24 of bill number 012 of 2006 House, 087 of 2007 Senate, "for which the Law is reformed 769 2002 (National Transit Code) and other provisions are issued", and consequently, it is declared to be exequable.

-To declare unfounded the presidential objection filed against the transitory article of article 27 of the bill number 012 of 2006 House, 087 of 2007 Senate, " href="ley_0769_2002.html#1"> 769 2002 (National Transit Code) and other provisions are issued", for the violation of the principle of autonomy of territorial entities.

b) Presidential Objections with Inhibitory Failure

-Declared to be inhibited in order to make a substantive ruling in relation to paragraph 3 of Article 3o of Bill No. 012 of 2006 Chamber, 087 of 2007 Senate, "for which the Law is reformed href="ley_0769_2002.html#1"> 769 2002 (National Transit Code) and other provisions are dictated", for current lack of object.

-Declared to be inhibited for a substantive ruling in relation to the expression "new" of Article 11 of Bill 012 of 2006 House, 087 of 2007 Senate, "for which the Law is reformed 769 2002 (National Transit Code) and other provisions are dictated", for current lack of object.

-Declared to be inhibited in order to make a substantive ruling in relation to the paragraph of article 15 of bill number 012 of 2006 Chamber, 087 of 2007 Senate, "for which the Law is reformed href="ley_0769_2002.html#1"> 769 2002 (National Transit Code) and other provisions are dictated", for current lack of object.

-Declared to be inhibited in order to make a substantive ruling in relation to paragraph 3 of Article 17 of Bill No. 012 of 2006 Chamber, 087 of 2007 Senate, " href="ley_0769_2002.html#1"> 769 2002 (National Transit Code) and other provisions are dictated", for current lack of object.

-Declared to be inhibited in order to make a substantive ruling, for the charge of violation of the principle of legality, in relation to article 24 of the Bill of Law number 012 of 2006 Chamber, 087 of 2007 Senate, Law 769 of 2002 (National Transit Code) and other provisions are dictated".

-Declare inhibited to propose a substantive ruling, for the alleged charge of violation of the principle of equality, in relation to the transitional article of article 27 of the Bill of Law number 012 of 2006 Chamber, 087 of 2007 Senate, " I_aj"> by which the Law 769 of 2002 (National Transit Code) is reformed and other provisions are dictated", for inept objection.

c) Declared presidential Objections

-Declare the presidential objection filed against Article 21 and the expressions "The following points system is established: For each violation greater than or equal to 8 smlvd 2 points. For each infringement greater than or equal to 15 smlvd 6 points. For each infringement greater than or equal to 30 smlvd 8 points", of article 17 of the bill, for violating article 29 Superior, and consequently they are declared inexequibles.

Well, it is clear that the duty of redoing and integrating the text of the bill would fall exclusively on Articles 17 and 21 of the draft law, since the other objections were found unfounded or a ruling was made. Inhibitor.

In this regard, it should be specified that the Court considered that, although the President of the Republic only formally objected to Article 17 of the bill, this Corporation considered that, based on the legal arguments put forward In the content of the presidential objection, as well as the position taken by the Congress of the Republic, the truth is that Article 21 of the aforementioned bill was also criticized. It is therefore decided to bring forward the corresponding regulatory integration.

In this sense, it is recalled that the President claimed that the coexistence of two administrative systems sanctioning in the same law, for the purposes those enshrined in Articles 17 and 21 (systems of sanctions for points by the commission of traffic offences), violated the fundamental right to due process, in particular the principle of legality.

Now, the Court considered that the presidential objection was called to prosper, for the following reasons:

" 4.3. Case resolution by the Court.

4.3.1. Examination of the transit sanctions system established by the legislator in front of the article 29 Superior.

According to the President of the Republic, the provision introduces a system of points in front of the commission of traffic violations with inconsistencies and contradictions that hinder their effective implementation, in contravention of the principle of legality contained in article 29 of the Political Constitution that requires the legislator to establish clear rules for the investigation and enforcement of sanctions with respect to principle of legality.

The executive's reproach part of indicating that Article 17 provides for a system of discount points of the driving licence for traffic violations that is different from the points discount system established in the Article 21 of the same Bill; likewise, Article 17 amends article 93 of Law 769 of 2002, which is contained in Chapter IV of Title III of the National Land Transit Code making reference to the rules of behaviour for public transport.

This generates, according to the President of the Republic, a normative contradiction that goes against the principle of procedural legality and allows arbitrary behavior of the legal operator, because it is not known if the system The question is addressed exclusively to public transport drivers or to all drivers; and because that system is different from that set out in Article 21 of the Bill, as can be observed:

Article 17	Article 21
Multa	Points	Multa	Points
8 smldv	2	8 smldv	1
15 smldv	6	15 smldv	2
30 smldv	8	30 smldv	3
		45 smldv	6

Moreover, according to the President of the Republic, the regulatory contradiction between Articles 17 and 21 of the draft law can lead to the " collapse of the system, in particular, in respect of the suspension and cancellation of the driving. ' It also alleges that Article 17 provides for a disproportionate system of penalties.

The Tax View, for its part, shares the presidential objection as to its concept that Article 21 is rationally clearer and more precise than that laid down in Article 17 objecting, ' which covers its proportionality (principle of procedural favorability) ".

The Constitutional Court considers that the presidential objection is partially founded, for the following reasons.

Article 93 of the current National Transit and Transit Code provides the following:

" ARTICLE 93. CONTROL OF VIOLATIONS OF PUBLIC SERVICE DRIVERS. The transit agencies shall send the statistics on the traffic offences of drivers to the public on a monthly basis and they shall in turn transmit the control programmes to be established for the purpose of the drivers.

Now, article 17 of the draft law introduces a set of important modifications to that provision, as are the following:

(a) An obligation is established, in the head of the transit agencies, to report to the Integrated System of Fine and Penalties daily, the corresponding penalties imposed, for the purpose of making it compliant and keeping the Register available Single Transit, RUNT.

b) A system of points is established, consisting in that for each violation greater than certain minimum monthly legal salaries in force, the driver will receive as a penalty a certain number of points.

c) A sanctioning faculty is established in the head of the Superintendence of Ports and Transportation on transport companies that allow to drive people with suspended or canceled license.

d) An obligation is established for public transport companies to establish monitoring and control programmes for infringements.

e) The database query named SIMIT is available to be free of charge.

I have already warned that the subject of the penalty system for points is only one of the aspects covered by article 17 of the draft law.

On the other hand, the current article 131 of the National Transit and Transportation Code establishes a list of the fines to be canceled by the offending drivers. penalties that, as they are known, are calculated on current monthly legal minimum wages.

In this sense, article 21 of the bill, modifies the current sanctioning regime in the sense of establishing that " The violators of the traffic rules will be punished with the imposition of fines or with fines and loss of points, according to the type of infraction so ... ". So, the sanctions are regrouped by the legislator, with the following letters:

A. The driver of a non-motor vehicle or animal traction vehicle that incurs any of the following offences shall be fined equivalent to four (4) current minimum statutory wages:

(...)

B. It will be sanctioned with a fine equivalent to eight (8) daily minimum legal wages in force and the loss of one (1) point, the driver and/or owner of an automotive vehicle that incurs any of the following violations:

(...)

C. It will be sanctioned with a fine equivalent to fifteen (15) minimum daily legal wages in force and the loss of two (2) points, the driver and/or owner of an automotive vehicle that incurs any of the following violations:

(...)

D. It will be sanctioned with a fine equivalent to thirty (30) daily minimum legal wages in force and the loss of three (3) points, the driver and/or owner of an automotive vehicle that incurs any of the following violations:

(...)

E. It will be sanctioned with a fine equivalent to forty-five (45) minimum daily legal wages in force and with the loss of six (6) points the driver and/or owner of an automotive vehicle that incurs any of the following violations:

Additionally, the following two paragraphs are set:

PARAGRAFO 1o. The driver who has not been sanctioned in a period of one (1) year, will be reset to the missing points.

PARAGRAFO 2o. The traffic violations, the sanction of which is the imposition of fines as described in other articles of Law 769 of 2002, will also result in the loss of 1, 2, 3 or 6 points, if the penalty of fine is in its order of 8, 15, 30 or 45 daily legal minimum wages in force.

Now, the two systems that have been confronted by points, that is, the one established in Article 17 of the bill, with that of 21, the Court finds that the following table presented by the President of the Republic, corresponds to the reality:

Article 17	Article 21
Multa	Points	Multa	Points
8 smldv	2	8 smldv	1
15 smldv	6	15 smldv	2
30 smldv	8	30 smldv	3
		45 smldv	6

He wants to say that, as the Fiscal View holds, there are certain contradictions between two sanctioning systems that violate the guiding principles of sanctioning administrative law. In this regard, the Court in Case C-564 2000, in relation to the principle of legality in sanctioning matters, considered the following:

(...)

In the present case, two different points of sanctioning systems cannot coexist in the same normative text, as this would leave the judge's discretion to apply.

In this order of ideas, the Court considers the presidential objection filed against Article 21 and the expressions to be founded. " The following points system is established: For each infringement greater than or equal to 8 smlvd 2 points. For each infringement greater than or equal to 15 smlvd 6 points. For each infringement greater than or equal to 30 smlvd 8 points ", of article 17 of the bill, for violating the article 29 Superior, and consequently they declare INEXEQUAL.

Well, it must be borne in mind that the constitutional controversy raised by the President of the Republic in C-321 in 2009, pointed out precisely that the coexistence of two systems (a) the Court of Arbitration for a decision of the Court of the European Parliament, the Court of the European Parliament, the Court of the European Parliament, the Court of the European Court of compliance with the rule, violated the article 29 Superior.

The Fiscal View, for its part, shared the presidential objection because, in its concept, Article 21 of the bill was more accurate and proportionate than that set out in Article 17 of the bill.

For his part, the Minister of Transport, in his speech, asks the Court to clarify his ruling in the sense that "is Article 17 of the bill, which must be declared inexequible, but not Article 21, As in the resolutive part of the judgment, Articles 17 and 21 of the project were ineximitable".

So, once the text of the 2009 C-321 judgment has been examined, and the Transport Minister's request is analysed, it is clear that (i) the ratio decided of the judgment consisted of simply stating that, in the same regulatory text, two administrative systems based on the same method (imposition of points on the driving licence) could not coexist; (ii) the Court did not hold that the system of penalties for points, stipulated in the text of the bill, violates per se Article 29 Superior; (iii) the constitutional judge also could not decide which of the two regulations (articles 17 or 21 of the bill) was more convenient, since it does not correspond to him to advance Nor will it enter into the will of the Congress of the Republic; and (iv) likewise, the Court is barred from clarifying the meaning of a ruling, as requested by the intervener.

Thus, the Court's jurisdiction is limited to establishing whether the Congress of the Republic, after having redone and integrated the bill, maintained two similar administrative sanctioning systems, in this case, for on the driving licence.

5.2. Transcript of the text redone and integrated by the Congress of the Republic

Once the work that the Court has done in judgment C-321 of 2009, like the ratio decendendi of the ruling, this Corporation must enter to analyze if the Congress of the Republic fulfilled the decision by the constitutional judge.

For such purposes, the Court will transfer the relevant elements of the proposals made by the members of the Accidental Commission, and then the content of the text approved in Plenary and Senate, which is the same for the other.

So, after analyzing the concept rendered by the Minister of Transportation, the Accidental Commission proposed to redo and integrate the bill into the following aspects:

1. Redo the text of article 4 of the project, which modifies article 17 of Law 769 of 2002, removing the paragraph that refers to the license with the points system, In view of the declaration of inexilibility by the Constitutional Court. The removed paragraph enshrined:

(...)

2. Redo the text of article 7o of the project, which modifies article 26 of Law 769 of 2002, removing the numerals referred to the points system in the licenses driving, as follows:

(...)

3. Redo the text of article 17 of the project, which modifies article 93 of Law 769 of 2002, removing the items that set the points system, given the The declaration of inexilibility made by the honorable Constitutional Court. The removed ones are as follows:

(....)

4. Redo the text of article 21 of the project, which modifies article 131 of Law 769 of 2002, removing the items referring to the points system, given the The declaration of inexilibility made by the honorable Constitutional Court. The deleted ones are the ones that are highlighted below:

(...)

5. By virtue of the integrative faculty, two syntactic corrections were made in Articles 19 and 25, which are highlighted and at the same time highlighted in bold, as: In article 19, the word The and article 25: degree of drunkenness.

6. In exercise of the integrative faculty of the text of the Project, clarifies the text of article 24 of the bill, as follows:

" Article 24. Article 136 of Law 769 of 2002, will remain so.

136. Reduction of the fine. Once the order of comparison has been issued, if the defendant accepts the commission of the infringement, he may without need of another administrative action, cancel fifty percent (50%) of the value of the fine within five days of the (b) order to compare, or you may cancel seventy-five percent (75%) of the value of the fine, if you pay within twenty days of the order of comparison. In either of these two events you must necessarily attend a course on transit rules in the Comprehensive Care Center, where you will cancel twenty-five percent (25%) of the value of the fine, and the twenty-five (25%) or the fifty (50%) remaining, as the case may be, will pay it to the transit agency. If the breach is accepted, the breach is not paid on the given opportunities, the counter must cancel (100%) the value of the fine plus their corresponding moratorical interests.

If the defendant rejects the commission of the infringement, he must appear before the official in public hearing so that he will decree the necessary tests that are requested and the ones of his office that he considers useful. At the same hearing, if possible, the evidence shall be conducted and the defendant shall be punished or acquitted. If he is declared a contractor, he shall be given a hundred percent (100%) of the value of the fine provided for in this code.

If the defendant does not appear without fair cause within the following five (5) business days, the transit authority after 30 days of the alleged infringement will follow the process, understanding that it remains linked to it, failing in public hearing and notifying itself in strates.

Free transit agencies will be able to enter into agreements for the collection of fines and will be able to establish agreements with the banks for this purpose. Payment of the fine and the appearance may be made anywhere in the country.

PARAGRAFO 1o. In places where traffic inspections are in place, competent officials may impose on the infringer the appropriate sanction at the place and time where the violation has been committed in accordance with the law.

PARAGRAFO 2o. As of the entry into force of this law and for a period of twelve (12) months, all drivers who have pending payment of traffic violations, will be eligible for the 50% discount (50%) the value of the fine and the interest.

Thus, at the time of redoing and integrating the text of the objecting bill, the Congress adopted three decisions in particular (i) to delete any reference to the penalty system by points; (ii) to make two syntactic corrections in the Articles 19 and 25; and (iii) "clarify" the meaning of article 24 of the bill.

According to the above, the text redone and integrated, analyzed and approved by the Senate and Chamber Plenaries was as follows:

" REDONE AND INTEGRATED TEXT OF BILL NUMBER 012 OF 2006 HOUSE, 087 OF 2007 SENATE

by which the 2002 Law 769 , National Transit Code, is reformed, and other provisions are dictated.

The Congress of Colombia

DECRETA:

Article 1o. Article 1or Law 769 of 2002, shall be as follows:

Article 1or. Application scope and principles. The rules of this Code govern throughout the national territory and regulate the movement of pedestrians, users, passengers, drivers, motorcyclists, cyclists, transit agents and vehicles on public or private roads, are open to the public, or on private roads that are internally circulated, as well as the performance and procedures of the transit authorities.

In development of the provisions of Article 24 of the Political Constitution, every Colombian has the right to move freely through the national territory, but he is subject to intervention and regulations of the authorities to guarantee the safety and comfort of the inhabitants, especially pedestrians and the physically and mentally handicapped, for the preservation of a healthy environment and the protection of the common use of space public.

It is up to the Ministry of Transport as the supreme transit authority to define, guide, monitor and inspect the implementation of national transit policy.

Transit authorities will promote the dissemination and knowledge of the provisions contained in this code.

The guiding principles of this code are user safety, mobility, quality, opportunity, coverage, freedom of access, full identification, free movement, education and decentralization.

Article 2o. Article 3or Law 769 of 2002, shall be as follows:

Article 3or. Transit authorities. For the purposes of this law, it should be understood that they are transit authorities, in their order, the following:

The Minister of Transport.

Governors and Mayors.

The departmental, municipal, or district transit agencies.

The National Police through the Transit and Transportation Directorate.

The Police Inspectors, the Transit Inspectors, Corregidores or whoever does their time in each territorial entity.

The General Superintendence of Ports and Transportation.

Military Forces to comply exclusively with paragraph 5 of this article.

The Transit and Transportation Agents.

PARAGRAFO 1o. Public or private entities to which certain transit functions are assigned to them by delegation or agreement shall constitute bodies supporting the transit authorities.

PARAGRAFO 2o. The national government may delegate to the transit agencies the functions which are the law of the Ministry of Transport.

PARAGRAFO 3o. The authorities, transit agencies, public or private entities that constitute support agencies will be monitored and controlled by the Superintendence of Ports and Transportation.

PARAGRAFO 4o. The faculty of transit authority granted to the specialized bodies of the National Police will be exercised as a competition to prevent.

PARAGRAFO 5o. The Military Forces will be able to carry out the work of regulating traffic in those areas where there is no presence of a transit authority.

Article 3o. Article 5or Law 769 of 2002, shall be as follows:

Article 5or. Demarcation and road signs. The Ministry of Transport will regulate in a term not more than 60 days after the sanction of this law, the technical characteristics of the demarcation and signalling of all the road infrastructure and its application and compliance will be responsibility for each of the transit agencies in their respective jurisdiction.

PARAGRAFO 1o. The Ministry of Transport shall respect and host international conventions that have been signed or subscribed to in relation to the regulation of location, installation, demarcation and road signs.

PARAGRAFO 2o. Road information and urban signage must be made with vitrified, antivandalic material to ensure a minimum shelf life of 10 years and, where appropriate, retroreflective material.

Article 4o. Article 17 of Law 769 of 2002, will remain so:

< b > Item 17. Granting. The driving license shall be granted for the first time to those who meet all the requirements described in Article 19 of this code, by the public or private entity authorized for the purpose by the transit body in its respective jurisdiction.

The format of the driving licence shall be national only, for which the Ministry of Transport shall establish the technical information sheet for its preparation and the corresponding control mechanisms.

New driving licenses will contain at least the following data: full driver name, identification document number, footprint, blood type, date of birth, license category, restrictions, date of expedition and body that issued it.

Within the technical characteristics of the driving licences shall include, inter alia, a two-dimensional bar code or other electronic, magnetic or optical device with the data in the register allowing for the reading and updating of these. The new driving licences shall allow the transit agency to confront the identity of the respective holder in accordance with the applicable law on the matter, at no cost.

PARAGRAFO 1o. Who is currently the holder of a driving licence, which does not comply with the technical conditions laid down in this Article and in the regulations which the Ministry of Transport shall issue for that purpose, shall replace it in a the term of forty-eight (48) months counted from the enactment of this law, in accordance with the provisions of article 15 of Law 1005 of 2006. For this purpose, you must present peace and save for traffic violations and the certificate referred to in Article 19 of this code.

PARAGRAFO 2o. To ensure the free movement of licenses, transit agencies are authorized to discount, for one time, a sum equal to a minimum wage, current legal (smldv), for each license issued, of the resources that must be transferred to the Ministry of Transport by way of venal species.

Article 5o. Article 19 of Law 769 of 2002, will remain so:

Article 19. Requirements. You can obtain for the first time a driving license for vehicles that can demonstrate compliance with the following requirements:

For service vehicles other than public service:

1. Know how to read and write.

2. Be 16 years old.

3. Approve a theoretical-practical test of driving for private vehicles to be carried out by the transit agencies in accordance with the regulations issued by the Ministry of Transport, or to present a certificate of aptitude in driving granted by a car teaching centre duly approved by the Ministry of National Education in coordination with the Ministry of Transport.

4. Certificate of physical fitness, mental and motor coordination for driving issued by a driver's recognition centre enabled by the Ministry of Transport and duly accredited as a certification body for persons in the motor vehicle drivers ' area.

For public service vehicles:

The same requirements listed above, with the exception of the minimum age to be 18 years of age and of the theoretical and practical tests and of physical and mental fitness or the driving aptitude certificates issued to be referred to the driving of a public service vehicle.

PARAGRAFO 1o. In order to obtain the driving licence for the first time, or the recategorisation, renewal and endorsement of the licence, the physical, mental and motor-coordination fitness must be demonstrated to the transit authorities, making use of the driving licence. assessment of the required systematized and digitised technological means, which allow the measurement and evaluation within the ranges established by the Ministry of Transport according to the international parameters and limits, among others, vision and hearing orientation, visual acuity and campimetry, reaction times and recovery to the candiation, the coordination capacity between acceleration and braking, the person's integral motor coordination, the discrimination of colours and the horizontal and vertical phoria.

PARAGRAFO 2o. The Ministry of Transport shall regulate so that within up to 12 months the driver recognition centres comply with the requirements for qualification and accreditation.

PARAGRAFO 3o. The Ministry of Transport will regulate the costs of the examination, with reference to the current values, making annual adjustments up to the Consumer Price Index, CPI.

Article 6o. Article 22 of Law 769 of 2002, will remain so:

Article 22. Driving License Vigency. Driving licences for service vehicles other than the public will have an indefinite effect. However, every five (5) years, the licence holder must endorse it, for which a further examination of physical, mental and motor-coordination fitness will be carried out, which will enable the required skills to be maintained. driving.

Driving licences for public service vehicles shall be valid for three (3) years, after which they shall be required to be endorsed, with a further examination of physical, mental and motor-coordination fitness, and the registration of information or certificate stating that it is up-to-date by way of payment of fines for infringements of the rules of transit, duly implemented.

PARAGRAFO. All public service drivers over sixty (60) years must endorse their driving licence annually, demonstrating by the respective examination, their physical, mental and motor coordination fitness. Similarly, every three (3) years will be done by the drivers of service other than the public, starting from the sixty-five (65) years of age.

Article 7o. Article 26 of Law 769 of 2002, will remain so:

Article 26. Suspend or cancel Causals. The driving license will be suspended:

1. At the disposal of the transit authorities, based on the temporary, physical or mental impossibility of driving, supported by a medical certificate or the examination of physical, mental or coordination fitness issued by a Centre for Recognition Legally enabled drivers.

2. By judicial decision.

3. To be in a state of drunkenness or under the effect of hallucinogenic drugs determined by the competent authority in accordance with the provisions of Article 152 of this code.

4. For the provision of public transport services with private vehicles, except where the public order justifies it, subject to such a decision by the respective authority.

Driving license will be canceled:

1. At the disposal of the transit authorities based on the permanent physical or mental impossibility to drive, supported by a medical certificate or the physical, mental and motor-coordination fitness test issued by a Centre of Legally enabled Driver Recognition.

2. By judicial decision.

3. By death of the holder. The National Registry of the Civil State is obliged to report to the systems created by Articles 8o and 10 of this order, the death of the owner.

4. Recidivism upon finding driving in any degree of drunkenness or under the effect of hallucinogenic drugs determined by competent authority, in accordance with Article 152 of this code.

5. For recidivism in the provision of public transport service with private vehicles without fair cause.

6. For making use of the driving license being suspended.

7. For obtaining by means of fraudulent means the issue of a driving licence, without prejudice to the corresponding criminal actions.

PARAGRAFO. The suspension or cancellation of the driving license involves the mandatory delivery of the document to the competent transit authority to impose the penalty for the period of the suspension or from the cancellation of it.

The notification of the suspension or cancellation of the driving license shall be made in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Administrative Contentious Code.

Three years after the cancellation, the driver will be able to reapply for a new driving license.

Article 8o. Article 28 of Law 769 of 2002 will thus remain:

Article 28. Technology, pollutant and operational emissions. For a vehicle to be able to transit through the national territory, it must ensure at least a perfect brake operation, the steering system, the suspension system, the system of visual and audible signals allowed and the gas exhaust system; and demonstrate an adequate state of rims, the set of safety glasses and mirrors and comply with the pollutant emission standards that environmental authorities establish.

PARAGRAFO 1o. The transit authorities shall exercise in public transport service vehicles, a check and verification of the proper functioning and calibration of the devices used for charging in the provision of a public service.

PARAGRAFO 2o. The Superintendence of Ports and Transportation, will contract the services of a call center, which will be under its surveillance, inspection and control, by which any person will be able to report the commission of traffic violations, or the violation of the regime of sanctions by the public service companies of automotive land transport. Calls will have no cost. The costs of this service will be borne by the public service companies of motor transport in proportion to the number of vehicles linked.

For this purpose, public and official service vehicles must be required to carry a visible warning both inside and outside, in which the telephone number corresponding to the call center is pointed out. indicated.

Public service vehicles must also be marked on the sides and on the roof, the number of the plate according to the rules of the Ministry of Transport.

The obligations provided for in this article and the hiring of the call center services shall be implemented in a term not greater than one (1) year counted from the date of enactment of this law.

Article 9o. Chapter VIII of Title II of Law 769 , 2002, will be as follows:

CHAPTER VIII

Technical-mechanical and pollutant emissions review

Article 10. Article 50 of Law 769 of 2002, will remain so:

Article 50. Mechanical, environmental, and security conditions. For reasons of road safety and environmental protection, the owner or holder of the vehicle of national or foreign plates, transiting through the national territory, will have the obligation to maintain it in optimum mechanical conditions, environmental and security.

Article 11. Article 51 of Law 769 of 2002, will remain so:

Article 51. Periodic review of vehicles. All motor vehicles must be subject to technical-mechanical and pollutant emissions annually. Vehicles of particular service shall be subject to such review every two years (2) years during their first six (6) years from the date of their registration; motorcycles shall do so annually.

The review will be intended to verify:

1. The proper status of the bodywork.

2. Emission levels of gases and pollutants in accordance with current legislation on the matter.

3. The smooth operation of the mechanical system.

4. Proper operation of the electrical system and the optical assembly.

5. Efficiency of the internal combustion system.

6. Security items.

7. Good condition of the brake system, especially in the case where it operates with air, which does not emit acoustic signals above the permitted levels.

8. The tires of the vehicle.

9. The operation of the emergency systems and elements.

10. The proper functioning of the devices used for charging in the provision of the public service.

Article 12. Article 52 of Law 769 of 2002, will remain so:

Article 52. First review of automotive vehicles. New vehicles shall be subject to the first technical-mechanical and pollutant emission review when they comply with two (2) years from their date of registration.

PARAGRAFO. The automotive vehicles of foreign plates, which will temporarily enter and for up to three (3) months in the country, will not require technical-mechanical and pollutant emissions.

Article 13. Article 53 of Law 769 of 2002, will remain so:

Article 53. Automotive diagnostic centers. The technical-mechanical and pollutant emission review shall be carried out in legally constituted automotive diagnostic centres which have the conditions to be determined by the regulations issued by the Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of the Environment in terms of its powers. The Ministry of Transport will enable these centres, which must be recognised in advance in the National System of Standardisation, Certification and Metrology by being accredited as an inspection body.

The requirements, procedures, tests, personnel, equipment, tests and minimum information systems to be accredited by the automotive diagnostic center, to obtain the aforementioned accreditation will be stipulated by the Superintendence of Industry and Trade, with scope to the provisions of the regulations of the Ministry of Transport.

The results of the technical-mechanical and pollutant emissions review will be recorded in a uniform document whose characteristics will be determined by the Ministry of Transport. For the review of the vehicle, only the presentation of its transit licence and the relevant compulsory insurance shall be required.

PARAGRAFO 1o. Who does not carry such a document will incur the penalties provided for in the law. For all legal effects this will be considered as a public document.

Article 14. Article 54 of Law 769 of 2002, will remain so:

Article 54. Computer record. The automotive diagnostic centres shall keep a computerized record of the results of the technical-mechanical and pollutant emission reviews of each vehicle, including those which do not approve it.

Article 15. Article 76 of Law 769 of 2002, will remain so:

Article 76. Places prohibited for parking. It is prohibited to park vehicles at the following locations:

On platforms, green areas or on public space for pedestrians, recreation or conservation.

In arteries, highways, safety zones, or within a crosswalk.

On main and collector routes in which the prohibition or restriction in relation to schedules or types of vehicles is expressly stated.

On bridges, viaducts, tunnels, low passes, elevated structures, or any of the accesses to these.

In areas expressly intended for parking or stopping of certain types of vehicles, including public service vehicle stops, or for limited physical vehicles.

In lanes dedicated to bulk transport without authorization.

A distance greater than thirty (30) centimeters from the sidewalk.

In double row of parked vehicles, or in front of hydrants and garage entries.

In curves.

Where to interfere with the output of parked vehicles.

Where transit authorities prohibit it.

In the area of safety and protection of the railway, on the main road, secondary roads, parks, stations and railway annexations.

Non-compliance with this rule will be sanctioned with thirty (30) daily minimum legal wages in force, smldv.

Article 16. Article 91 of Law 769 of 2002, will remain so:

91. Of the Bakers. Every driver of a public service vehicle for automotive land transport must pick up or leave passengers exclusively on the sites permitted by the competent authorities and in accordance with the routes and schedules, as the case may be.

Failure to comply with this rule will be sanctioned with thirty (30) smldv, the public service companies to which such vehicles are linked will be jointly and severally liable for the payment of the fine.

Article 17. Article 93 of Law 769 of 2002, will remain so:

Article 93. Driver violation control. The transit agencies shall report on a daily basis to the Integrated System of Multas and Sanctions for traffic violations the violations imposed, in turn, as and as the National Register of National Transit, RUNT.

PARAGRAFO 1o. The Superintendence of Ports and Transportation will penalize with a fine equivalent to one hundred minimum monthly legal salaries in force (100 smlmv) to the public transport companies of the automotive, which have in exercise to drivers with suspended or cancelled driving license.

PARAGRAFO 2o. Auto-land public transport companies will be required to establish control and monitoring programs for drivers ' traffic violations to their service. This program will have to be sent monthly by the public transportation companies automotive to the Superintendence of Ports and Transportation. Companies that do not comply with the above will be sanctioned by that entity with a fine equivalent to one hundred current monthly legal minimum wages (100 smlmv).

Article 18. The 2002 Act 769 , will have the following new article:

Article 93-1. Solidarity for fines. They shall be jointly and severally liable for the payment of fines for traffic offences by the owner and the undertaking to which the vehicle is linked, in those offences attributable to the owners or to the undertakings.

Article 19. Article 102 of Law 769 of 2002, will remain so:

Article 102. Handling debris. Each municipality shall determine the place (s) approved for the final disposal of the debris occurring within its jurisdiction, the handling of these materials shall be made duly isolated preventing it from spreading through the tracks and in accordance with the applicable environmental regulations, under the responsibility of the holder of the permit granted by the transit authority, who shall be responsible for monitoring compliance with the standard, without prejudice to the liability for damage to public goods. Failure to comply with this rule will be punishable by a fine of thirty (30) smldv.

PARAGRAFO. It will be sanctioned with a fine of (30) smldv, who transporting mineral aggregates such as: Arena, crushed or concrete, does not perfectly isolate the load and allows it to spread through the public roads, putting at risk the safety of others vehicles.

Article 20. Article 122 of Law 769 of 2002, will remain so:

122. Sanctions Types. The penalties for violations of this code are:

1. Warning.

2. Fine.

3. Preventive retention of the driving license.

4. Suspension of the driving licence.

5. Suspension or cancellation of the permit or registration.

6. Immobilization of the vehicle.

7. Preventive restraint of the vehicle.

8. Final cancellation of the driving licence.

The penalties mentioned in this article will be imposed as principal or ancillary to the person responsible for the infringement, regardless of the environmental sanctions to which there is a violation of any of the regulations, prohibitions and restrictions on pollutant emissions and noise generation from mobile sources.

PARAGRAFO 1o. The following sanctions shall be imposed by the respective transit authorities on the Commission on Environmental Infraactions:

1. Fine equivalent to thirty (30) daily minimum legal wages.

2. Suspension of the driving licence for up to six (6) months, for the second time, in addition to a fine equal to that provided for in the numeral 1, if the driver is the owner of the vehicle.

3. Revocation or revocation of the driving licence for the third time, in addition to a fine equal to that provided for in the numeral 1, if the driver is the owner of the vehicle.

4. Immobilisation of the vehicle, which shall be without prejudice to the imposition of the other penalties.

In cases of infringement of the prohibitions on devices or accessories generating noise, on sirens and alarms, the same as on the use of the silencer will proceed to the immediate immobilization of the vehicle, without prejudice to the other penalties to be applied.

When the prohibitions, restrictions or regulations on pollutant emissions are violated by motor vehicles, the following procedure will be followed:

The traffic monitoring agent that detects or warns of a violation of the emission standards for pollutants or noise generation by motor vehicles, will deliver to the alleged infringer a quotation ballot for the vehicle to be presented in a diagnostic centre for a technical inspection in a term which may not exceed fifteen (15) days. The citation will indicate the mode of the alleged infringement that causes it. This is without prejudice to the validity of the certificate of compulsory technical-mechanical and gas review.

The technical inspection and thus determined the nature of the offence, the diagnostic centre where the offence was practised, will give the alleged infringer a copy of the result of the examination carried out on the vehicle and forward the original to the competent transit authority, so that, after hearing the person concerned, the sanction imposed in each case shall be imposed.

In case the offender cited does not present the vehicle for the practice of the inspection visit at the date and time indicated, except for proven force majeure or fortuitous case, the fines to be increased up to the double and the vehicle may be immobilized by the respective transit authority, until the infringer ensures by means of the vehicle repair.

Practiced the technical inspection, the infringer will have a term of fifteen (15) days to repair the vehicle and correct the fault that has been detected in the diagnostic center and must present it, before the expiration of this new (a) the term of office for a new inspection in order to determine that the defects of the vehicle, which cause the infringement of the environmental standards, have been corrected. If the deadline is expired and the new revision is carried out, if the vehicle does not meet the standards or is caught in circulation on the public road, it will be immobilized.

When the transit authority detects an ostensible and serious violation of environmental standards, it may order the offender to immediately review the vehicle in an approved diagnostic center for inspection practice. technique.

If the roadworthiness test is established that the vehicle complies with environmental standards, there will be no enforcement of fines.

The vehicles powered by gasoline engines are exempt from technical inspection during the first three (3) months of the mobilization certificate, unless they are in flagrant and ostensible violation of the rules. environmental.

There shall be no technical inspection in cases of violation of environmental standards by emission of dust, particles, or fumes from the discovered load of motor vehicles.

In such a case, the transit agent shall order the arrest of the vehicle and shall provide the offender with a comparison or a summons to appear before the competent transit authority, to a hearing on which it shall be decided on the imposition of the of the sanction to be applied.

Transit agents may freeze up to twenty-four (24) hours, and must inform the competent transit authority, the vehicles that cause fugitive emissions from the discovered load, until they are taken by the infringer the appropriate measures to prevent such emissions, without prejudice to the application of the other penalties that apply.

PARAGRAFO 2o. For the purposes of this code, and unless otherwise provided, the fine should be understood to be established in current legal minimum wages.

Article 21. Article 131 of Law 769 of 2002, will remain so:

Article 131. Multas. Violators of the transit rules will be penalized with the imposition of fines, according to the type of violation, as follows:

A. The driver of a non-motor vehicle or animal traction vehicle that incurs any of the following offences shall be fined equivalent to four (4) daily minimum statutory wages:

A. 1 Do not transition to the right of the path.

A. 2 Agate from another vehicle in circulation.

A. 3 Transporting people or things that decrease their visibility and make driving uncomfortable.

A. 4 Transition by platforms and other places for pedestrian traffic.

A. 5 Do not respect the traffic signals.

A. 6 Transition without the required light devices.

A. 7 Transient without devices that allow immediate or stop-stopping, but in the defective state.

A. 8 Transiting by prohibited zones.

A. 9 Forward between two (2) automotive vehicles that are in their respective lanes.

A. 10 Drive through the railway or through protection and security zones.

A. 11 Transition by restricted zones or high-speed tracks such as motorways and arteries, in this case the non-automotive vehicle will be immobilized.

A. 12 Public service with this type of vehicle. In addition, the vehicle shall be immobilised for the first time, for the term of five days, for the second time twenty days and for the third time forty days.

B. The driver and/or owner of an automotive vehicle that incurs any of the following offences shall be fined equivalent to eight (8) current minimum statutory wages.

B. 1 Drive a vehicle without taking the driving license.

B. 2 Drive a vehicle with the expired driving license.

B. 3 No plates, or no valid permit issued by transit authority.

B. 4 With adulterated plates.

B. 5 With a single plate, or without the current permit issued by a transit authority.

B. 6 With false plates.

In these cases vehicles will be immobilized.

B. 7 Failure to inform the competent transit authority of the change of engine or color of a vehicle.

In both cases, the vehicle will be immobilized.

B. 8 Do not pay the toll at established sites.

B. 9 Use sound equipment to volumes that make it uncomfortable for passengers in a public service vehicle.

B. 10 Driving a vehicle with polarized, inked or obscured glass, without carrying the respective permit, in accordance with the existing regulations on the matter.

B. 11 Driving a vehicle with propaganda, advertising, or adhesives in its windows that hinder visibility.

B. 12 Do not respect the rules established by the competent authority for the transit of funeral services.

B. 13 Do not respect the formation of troops, the march of parades, processions, burials, student rows and public demonstrations and sports activities, duly authorized by the transit authorities.

B. 14 Remolate another vehicle violating the provisions of this code.

B. 15 Driving a public service vehicle that does not carry the notice of official fares in conditions of easy reading for passengers or to possess this deteriorated or adulterated notice.

B. 16 Allow animals or objects that make passengers uncomfortable in a public service vehicle for the carriage of passengers.

B. 17 Abandon a public service vehicle with passengers.

B. 18 Driving an individual public passenger transport vehicle without complying with the provisions of this code.

B. 19 Perform the loading or unloading of a vehicle on sites and hours prohibited by the competent authorities, in accordance with the provisions of the relevant rules.

B. 20 Transporting easily corrupt meat, fish or food into vehicles that do not meet the conditions set by the Ministry of Transport.

B. 21 Wash vehicles on public roads, in rivers, in canals and in broken water.

B. 22 Take children under ten (10) years in the front seat.

B. 23 Use radios, sound equipment, or amplification to volumes that exceed the maximum decibels set by environmental authorities. In the same way, use screens, image projectors or the like on the front of the vehicles, while on the move.

C. The driver and/or owner of an automotive vehicle that incurs any of the following violations shall be fined equivalent to fifteen (15) current minimum legal wages.

C. 1 Present adulterated or alien driving license, which will result in immobilization of the vehicle.

C. 2 Parking a vehicle on prohibited sites.

C. 3 Lock a driveway or intersection with a vehicle, except when the blockage is due to the occurrence of a traffic accident.

C. 4 Parking a vehicle without taking proper precautions or without placing at the distance indicated by this code, the signs of regulatory danger.

C. 5 Do not reduce the speed as indicated by this code, when transiting through a school crossing in the schedules and working days of the educational institution. Likewise, when transiting through hospital crossings or passenger terminals.

C. 6 Do not use the seat belt by the occupants of the vehicle.

C. 7 Stop signaling with the directional lights or by hand signals and with due anticipation, the turn or turn of the lane.

C. 8 Transiting without the required light devices or without the elements determined in this code.

C. 9 Do not respect the signs of arrest at the crossing of a railway line, or drive through the railway or through the protection and safety zones of the railway.

C. 10 Drive a vehicle with one or more open doors.

C. 11 Do not carry the prevention and safety equipment set out in this code or in the appropriate regulations.

C. 12 Fuel provider a motor vehicle with the engine on.

C. 13 Driving an automotive vehicle without the appropriate adaptations, when the driver suffers from physical limitation.

C. 14 Transiting by restricted sites or hours prohibited by the competent authority. In addition, the vehicle shall be fixed.

C. 15 Driving a vehicle, private or public service, exceeding the authorized capacity in the transit or operating license license.

C. 16 Driving a school vehicle without the respective permit or statutory flags, in addition the vehicle shall be immobilized.

C. 17 Circular with combinations of vehicles of two (2) or more towed units, without special authority of competent authority.

C. 18 Driving an authorized vehicle to provide public service with the damaged taximeter, with broken seals or adhesive labels with expired or adulterated calibration or when it is lacking, or when still having it, does not comply with the standards minimum quality and safety required by the competent authority or the competent authority is not in operation and the vehicle shall be immobilised.

C. 19 Leave or pick up passengers on sites other than those demarcated by the authorities.

C. 20 Driving a cargo vehicle in which construction or bulk materials are transported without the protective, hygiene and safety measures ordered. In addition, the vehicle shall be fixed.

C. 21 Do not secure the load to prevent the transported things from falling on the track. In addition, the vehicle shall be immobilised until the situation is remedied.

C. 22 Transport load of dimensions greater than those authorized without meeting the required requirements. In addition, the vehicle shall be fixed until such situation is remedied.

C. 23 Imparting on public roads to the public teaching practice to drive, without being authorized to do so.

C. 24 Driving motorcycle without observing the rules set out in this code.

C. 25 Transition, when there is more than one lane, to the left lane of the track at speed that hinders the transit of the other vehicles.

C. 26 Transiting in vehicles of 3.5 or more tons down the left lane of the track when there is more than one lane.

C. 27 Driving a vehicle whose load or passengers obstruct the visibility of the driver to the front, rear or side, or prevent control over the steering, brake or safety system. In addition, the vehicle shall be fixed.

C. 28 Make use of own devices of emergency vehicles, by drivers of other types of vehicles.

C. 29 Driving a vehicle at top speed to the maximum allowed.

C. 30 Do not take care of a step.

C. 31 Do not abide by the signals or requirements imposed by the transit agents.

C. 32. Do not respect the passing of pedestrians crossing a path in place allowed for them or not to give them the prelation in the slots for it established.

C. 33 Putting a vehicle in motion without the precautions to avoid shocks.

C. 34 Repair a vehicle on public roads, park or sidewalk, or do so in case of emergency, without addressing the procedure outlined in this code.

C. 35 Do not carry out the technical-mechanical review within the prescribed legal period or when the vehicle is not in suitable technical-mechanical or pollutant emission conditions, even when carrying the corresponding certificates, vehicle shall be fixed.

C. 36 Transport cargo into containers without special fastening devices. The vehicle shall be fixed.

C. 37 Transporting passengers on the platon of a pickup truck or on the platform of a cargo vehicle, whether they are a van or a platform of stakes.

C. 38 Use mobile communication systems or phones installed in vehicles at the time of driving, except if they are used with accessories or auxiliary equipment to allow the hands to be free.

C. 39. Violate the parking rules contained in article 77 of this code.

D. The driver and/or owner of an automotive vehicle that incurs any of the following offences shall be fined equivalent to thirty (30) current minimum statutory wages.

D. 1 Guiding a vehicle without having obtained the corresponding driving license. In addition, the vehicle shall be immobilized on the spot, until it is removed by a person authorised by the offender with a driving licence.

D. 2 Driving without carrying insurance ordered by law. In addition, the vehicle shall be fixed.

D. 3 Transient to the contrary to the stipulated for the track, road or rail. In the case of motorcycles, the immobilization shall be carried out until the value of the fine is paid or the competent authority decides on its imposition in the terms of Articles 135 and 136 of the National Transit Code.

D. 4 Do not stop at a red or yellow light light, a "PARE" signal, or a flashing red light. In the case of motorcycles, the immobilization shall be carried out until the value of the fine is paid or the competent authority decides on its imposition in the terms of Articles 135 and 136 of the National Transit Code.

D. 5 Driving a vehicle on sidewalks, plazas, pedestrian paths, separators, berms, channelling demarcations, green areas or special routes for non-motorized vehicles. In the case of motorcycles, the immobilization shall be carried out until the value of the fine is paid or the competent authority decides on its imposition in the terms of Articles 135 and 136 of the National Transit Code.

D. 6 Forward to another vehicle in berm, tunnel, bridge, curve, level steps and unregulated crossings or approaching the top of a slope or where the corresponding traffic signal indicates. In the case of motorcycles, the immobilization shall be carried out until the value of the fine is paid or the competent authority decides on its imposition in the terms of Articles 135 and 136 of the National Transit Code.

D. 7 Driving highly dangerous and irresponsible maneuvers that endanger people or things. In the case of motorcycles, the immobilization shall be carried out until the value of the fine is paid or the competent authority decides on its imposition in the terms of Articles 135 and 136 of the National Transit Code.

D. 8 Driving a vehicle without lights or the light, directional or brake devices, or with any of them damaged, in the hours or circumstances required by this code. In addition, the vehicle shall be immobilised, when two (2) or more of these lamps are not operated.

D. 9 Not to allow the passage of emergency vehicles.

D. 10 Driving a vehicle for school transportation with speeding.

D. 11 Allow the public passenger service that does not have the required emergency exits. In this case, the fine will be imposed jointly and severally on the company to which it is affiliated and the owner. In the case of a particular vehicle, the penalty shall be imposed jointly and severally on the owner.

D. 12 Driving a vehicle that, without proper authorization, is intended for a service other than that for which it has a transit license. In addition, the vehicle shall be immobilised for the first time, for the term of five days, for the second time twenty days and for the third time forty days.

D. 13 In the case of carrying cargo with a weight higher than the authorized vehicle, the vehicle shall be immobilized and the excess must be transhipped.

D. 14 The transit authorities shall order the immediate immobilization of vehicles that use for their mobilization non-regulated fuels such as propane gas or other vehicles that endanger the lives of users or pedestrians.

D. 15 Change of the route or route of the route for a public passenger transport service vehicle, approved by the relevant transit agency. In this case, the fine shall be imposed jointly and severally on the undertaking to which the vehicle and the owner are affiliated. In addition, the vehicle shall be fixed, except for cases of force majeure which are duly authorised by the transit agent.

E. It will be sanctioned with a fine equivalent to forty-five (45) daily legal minimum wages in force for the driver and/or owner of an automotive vehicle that incurs any of the following violations:

E. 1. Provide fuel to public service vehicles with passengers on board.

E. 2 Refuse to provide the public service without justified cause, provided that such refusal causes disruption of public order.

E. 3. Driving in a state of drunkenness or under the effects of hallucinogenic substances will be treated as set out in article 152 of this code. In the case of drivers of public service vehicles, school transport or driving instructor drivers, the pecuniary fine and the period of suspension of the licence shall be doubled. In all cases of drunkenness the vehicle will be immobilized and the state of drunkenness or alcoholemia will be established by a test that does not cause injury, which will be determined by the Institute of Legal Medicine and Forensic Sciences.

E. 4. Transport in the same vehicle and at the same time persons and dangerous substances such as explosives, toxic, radioactive, unauthorised fuels, etc. In these cases the license will be suspended for one (1) year and for two (2) years each time it reoccurs. The vehicle shall be fixed by one (1) year each time.

Article 22. Article 135 of Law 769 of 2002, will remain so:

Article 135. Procedure. Before the commission of a violation, the transit authority must follow the following procedure to impose the comparison:

Order to stop the running of the vehicle and extend to the driver the order of comparison in which it will order the offender to appear before the competent transit authority within five (5) working days. The driver will be given a copy of the order of comparison.

For the service in addition it will be mailed within three (3) working days following copy of the comparison to the owner of the vehicle, to the company to which it is linked and to the Superintendence of Ports and Transport for the competence.

The order of comparison must be signed by the driver, as long as this is possible. If the driver refuses to sign or present the licence, he or she shall sign a witness, which shall be fully identified with the number of his citizenship or passport card, address of address and telephone if he has it.

However, the competent authorities may contract the service of technical and technological means that permit evidence of the commission of violations or violations, the vehicle, the date, the place and the time. In such a case, it will be sent by mail within three (3) working days following the infringement and its supports to the owner who will be obliged to pay the fine. For the public service it will also be sent by mail within this same term copy of the comparison and its supports to the company to which it is linked and to the Superintendence of Ports and Transport for that of its competence.

The Ministry of Transport will determine the technical characteristics of the national single comparison form, as well as its delivery system. The driver shall indicate to the driver that he shall have the right to appoint a proxy if he so wishes and that the evidence he requests shall be issued or carried out at the hearing for which he is summoned. The comparison shall also provide the space to record the address of the defendant or the witness who has subscribed to it.

PARAGRAFO 1o. The transit authority shall provide the competent official or the entity with which it is responsible for its collection, within twelve (12) hours, of the copy of the order of comparison, subject to the use of a cause of misconduct.

When dealing with highway police officers, the delivery of this copy will be done through the route commander or the service director commander.

PARAGRAFO 2o. Transit agencies may enter into contracts or agreements with public or private entities in order to implement the principles of speed and efficiency in the collection of fines.

Article 23. Chapter IV of Title IV Sanctions and Procedures of Law 769 of 2002, will remain so:

CHAPTER IV

Take Action in Case of Compare Imposition

Article 24. Article 136 of Law 769 of 2002, will remain so:

Article 136. Reduction of the fine. Once the order of comparison has been issued, if the defendant accepts the commission of the infringement, he may need no other action administrative, cancel fifty percent (50%) of the value of the fine within five days of the order of comparison, or you may cancel seventy-five percent (75%) of the value of the fine, if you pay within twenty days following the order of comparison. In any of these two events, you will need to attend a course on transit rules in the Integral Care Centre, where you will cancel twenty-five percent (25%) of the value of the fine, and twenty-five (25%) or fifty (50%) remaining, as the case may be, to pay the transit agency. If the breach is accepted, the infringement is not paid on the given opportunities, the counter must cancel (100%) the value of the fine plus its corresponding moratorical interests.

If the defendant rejects the commission of the infringement, he must appear before the official in public hearing so that he will decree the necessary tests that are requested and the ones of his office that he considers useful. At the same hearing, if possible, the evidence shall be conducted and the defendant shall be punished or acquitted. If he is declared a contractor, he shall be charged one hundred per cent (100%) of the value of the fine provided for in this code.

If the defendant does not appear without fair cause within the following five (5) working days, the transit authority after 30 days of the alleged infringement will follow the process, understanding that it is linked to it, failing in public hearing and being notified in strates.

Free transit agencies will be able to enter into agreements for the collection of fines and will be able to establish agreements with the banks for this purpose. Payment of the fine and the appearance may be made anywhere in the country.

PARAGRAFO 1o. In places where there are road traffic inspections, competent officials may impose on the offender the appropriate sanction at the place and time where the violation has been committed while respecting the right of defence.

PARAGRAFO 2o. As from the entry into force of this law and for a period of twelve (12) months, all drivers who have pending payment of traffic offences, will be eligible for the 50% discount (50%) of the value of the fine and interest.

Article 25. Article 152 of Law 769 of 2002, will remain so:

Article 152. Degree of alcoholemia. In a term not exceeding 30 days from the date of issue of this law, the National Institute of Legal Medicine and Forensic Sciences by resolution shall establish the limits of the different degrees of state of the drunkenness.

If the alcohol test is done, it is established:

Second degree of drunkenness, in addition to the fine penalty, the suspension of the driving license between two (2) and three (3) years, and the obligation to carry out awareness, knowledge and consequences of the alcohol and drug addiction in rehabilitation centres duly authorised, for a minimum of forty (40) hours.

Third degree of drunkenness, to more than the penalty of fine, the suspension between three (3) and ten (10) years of the driving licence will be decreed, and the obligation to carry out awareness course, knowledge and consequences of the alcoholemia and drug addiction in duly authorized rehabilitation centers, for a minimum of eighty (80) hours.

It will be a criterion to fix this sanction, the recidivism, causing harm to people or things because of the drunkenness or trying to escape.

PARAGRAFO 1o. The recidivism in a third degree of drunkenness, will be causal to determine the definitive cancellation of the driving license.

PARAGRAFO 2o. The awareness certification will be indispensable for the delivery of the suspended driving license.

Article 26. Article 159 of Law 769 of 2002, will remain so.

Article 159. Compliance. The execution of the penalties imposed for violation of the transit rules, will be carried out by the authorities of transit of the jurisdiction where the fact was committed, who will be invested with coactive jurisdiction for the recovery, where necessary and prescribe in three years from the occurrence of the event and shall be interrupted by the filing of the application.

The transit authorities must establish publicly by the month of January each year, plans and programs aimed at the recovery of these sanctions and within this same period they will render public accounts on the execution of the same.

PARAGRAFO 1o. The transit authorities may contract the collection of the fines imposed by the commission of traffic offences.

PARAGRAFO 2o. The fines shall be the exclusive property of the transit agencies where the infringement was committed in accordance with their jurisdiction. The amount of those fines imposed on the national roads, by the National Police of Colombia, assigned to the Transportation and Transportation Directorate, will be distributed 50% for the municipality where the For the National Police Transit and Transportation Directorate, for the training of its assigned personnel, education and road safety plans that this specialty along the network will be. national road, locations that plan the needs of the service and the construction of the School of Road Safety of the National Police.

Article 27. The 2002 Law 769 will have the following transitional article:

Transient article. Facultate the Municipal and District Governors and Mayors until December 31, 2009 to decree amnesties to traffic offenders and to adopt measures for the consolidation of a portfolio of non-compliance the purpose of notification of the payment order by way of business and not exceed five (5) years of the events which gave rise to the action.

Article 28. This law governs from its enactment and repeals all provisions that are contrary to it. "

5.3. Review of the compliance with the Court's ruling.

5.3.1. The deletion in the text of the bill of all reference to the penalty system by points.

As explained, the Court in Judgment C-321 of 2009 merely considered that in the same normative text two sanctioning administrative systems based on the same method could not coexist, as it is that of the imposition of points on the driving licence.

El Salvador] The Congress of the Republic decided, as a result, to redo and integrate the bill by removing all reference to the aforementioned system. Likewise, it would have been equally valid to have left a single sanctioning system. Both decisions are in line with the ratio decendendi of Judgment C-321 of 2009, because, it is emphasized, the problem lies in the coexistence of two articles in the bill that regulated the same subject (system of penalties for drivers by points), but in a different way (one more burdensome than the other).

In this order of ideas, the Court will declare the requirement of article 167 of the Political Constitution fulfilled, as for Articles 17 and 21 of Bill 012 of 2006, House, 087 of 2007 Senate, "by which the Law 769 of 2002 (National Transit Code) is reformed and other provisions are dictated". Consequently, they will declare them EXEQUAL.

5.3.2. The syntactic corrections in Articles 19 and 25.

For clarity, the Court will transcribe, in double column, the original articles of the bill and its new version, after the corrections made by the Congress.

text	Congress-adjusted text
Article 19. Article 102 of Law 769 of 2002, will remain so: Article 102. Debris handling. Each municipality will determine the place or places authorized for the final disposal of the debris occurring in its jurisdiction, the handling of these materials will be duly isolated preventing it from spreading through the tracks and in accordance with the current environmental regulations, under the responsibility of the holder of the permit granted by the transit authority who will be responsible for surveillance control compliance with the standard, without prejudice to the determination of liability for the damage to public goods, failure to comply with this rule will be punishable by a fine of thirty (30) s.m.l.d.v. Paragraph. It will be sanctioned with a fine of (30) s.m.l.d.v., who transporting mineral aggregates such as: Arena, crushed or concrete, does not perfectly isolate the load and allows it to spread through the public roads, putting at risk the safety of other vehicles. Article 25. Article 152 of Law 769 of 2002, will remain so. Article 152. Degree of alcohol. In a term not exceeding 30 days from the date of issue of this law, the National Institute of Legal Medicine and Forensic Sciences by resolution shall establish the limits of the different degrees of state of the drunkenness. If the alcohol test is done, it is established: Second degree of drunkenness, in addition to the fine fine, the suspension of the driving licence between two (2) and three (3) years, and the obligation to carry out awareness course, knowledge and consequences of the alcohol and drug addiction in duly authorized rehabilitation centers, for a minimum of forty (40) hours. Third grade and shall be decreed, to more than the penalty of fine, the suspension between three (3) and ten (10) years of the driving licence, and the obligation to carry out awareness course, knowledge and consequences of the alcoholemia and drug addiction in duly authorized rehabilitation centers, for a minimum of eighty (80) hours. It will be a criterion to fix this sanction, the recidivism, causing harm to people or things because of the drunkenness or trying to escape. Paragraph 1o. The recidivism in a third degree of drunkenness, will be causal to determine the final cancellation of the driving license. Paragraph 2o. The awareness certification will be indispensable for the delivery of the suspended driving license.		Article 19. Article 102 of Law 769 of 2002, will remain so: Article 102. Handling of debris. Each municipality shall determine the place (s) approved for the final disposal of the debris occurring within its jurisdiction, the handling of these materials shall be made duly isolated preventing it from spreading through the tracks and in accordance with the applicable environmental regulations, under the responsibility of the holder of the permit granted by the transit authority, who shall be responsible for monitoring compliance with the standard, without prejudice to the liability for damage to public goods. The non-compliance with this rule will be sanctioned with a fine of thirty (30) smldv. Paragraph. It will be sanctioned with a fine of (30) smldv, who transporting mineral aggregates such as: Arena, crushed or concrete, does not perfectly isolate the load and allows it to spread through the public roads, putting at risk the safety of others vehicles. Article 25. Article 152 of Law 769 of 2002, will remain so. Article 152. Degree of alcoholemia. In a term not exceeding 30 days from the date of issue of this law, the National Institute of Legal Medicine and Forensic Sciences by resolution shall establish the limits of the different degrees of state of the drunkenness. If the alcohol test is done, it is established: Second degree of drunkenness, in addition to the fine fine, the suspension of the driving licence between two (2) and three (3) years, and the obligation to carry out awareness course, knowledge and consequences of the alcohol and drug addiction in duly authorized rehabilitation centers, for a minimum of forty (40) hours. Third degree of drunkenness, to more than the penalty of fine, the suspension shall be decreed between three (3) and ten (10) years of the driving licence, and the obligation to carry out awareness course, knowledge and consequences of the Alcohol and drug addiction in duly authorized rehabilitation centers, for a minimum of eighty (80) hours. It will be a criterion to fix this sanction, the recidivism, causing harm to people or things because of the drunkenness or trying to escape. Paragraph 1o. The recidivism in a third degree of drunkenness will be causal to determine the final cancellation of the driving license. Paragraph 2o. The certification of awareness will be indispensable for the delivery of the suspended driving license.

Once both texts have been confronted, the Court considers that, while the work of redoing and integrating the text of the bill was not a matter for Articles 19 and 25 of the draft, since it was not the subject of the points system, the Congress did not exceed its powers as soon as it limited itself to making adjustments to the wording of the aforementioned provisions, which in no way change their senses and scope. On the contrary, it helps to improve the quality of the law.

Thus, the Court will declare that, in the reworking of Bill 012 of 2006, House, 087 of 2007 Senate, for which the Law 769 of 2002 (National Transit Code) is reformed and other provisions are issued, as far as Articles 19 and 25 are concerned, the Constitution is not disavowed, and therefore EXEQUAL is declared.

5.3.3. Clarification of the meaning of article 24 of the bill.

Finally, the members of the Accidental Commission decided to "" the text of article 24 of the bill, which also does not have to do with the penalty system for points, but with the subject of the reduction of fines. For clarity, the two texts of the articles are set out.

text	Text "cleared" by Congress.
Article 24. Article 136 of Law 769 of 2002, will remain so. Article 136. Reduction of the Multa. Once the order of comparison has been issued, if the defendant accepts the commission of the infringement, he may need no other administrative action, to cancel fifty percent (50%) of the value of the fine within the following five days the order of comparison, likewise, or may cancel the seventy-five (75%) of the value of the fine, if it pays within the twenty days following the order of comparison, in these cases it must necessarily attend to a course on norms of transit through the Integral Care Center, where 25% will be cancelled and the surplus will be paid to the transit. If the breach is accepted, the infringement is not paid on the given opportunities, the defendant must cancel (100%) the value of the fine plus their corresponding moratoria interests. If the defendant rejects the commission of the infringement, the defendant must appear before the official in public hearing so that he will decree the necessary tests that are requested and the ones of his office that he considers useful.  If the contraventor does not appear without fair cause within the following five (5) working days, the transit authority after 30 days of the alleged infringement will follow the process, understanding that it is linked to the itself, failing in public hearing and notifying itself in strates. At the same hearing, if possible, the evidence shall be conducted and the defendant shall be punished or acquitted. If he is declared a contractor, one hundred percent (100%) of the value of the fine provided for in the code will be imposed. Transit agencies free of charge may conclude agreements for the collection of fines and may establish agreements with the banks for this purpose. Payment of the fine and the appearance can be made anywhere in the country. Paragraph 1o. In places where there are road traffic inspections, competent officials may impose on the offender the appropriate sanction at the place and time where the violation has been committed while respecting the right of defence. Paragraph 2o. As of the entry into force of this law and for a period of twelve (12) months, all drivers who have outstanding payment of traffic violations shall be eligible for the discount provided for in this Article.		Article 24. Article 136 of Law 769 of 2002, will remain so. Article 136. Reduction of the fine. Once the order of comparison has been issued, if the defendant accepts the commission of the infringement, he may need no other administrative action, to cancel fifty percent (50%) of the value of the fine within the following five days to the order of comparison, or may cancel seventy-five percent (75%) of the value of the fine, if it pays within twenty days following the order of comparison. In either of these two events, you must necessarily attend a course on transit rules in the Comprehensive Care Center, where you will cancel twenty-five percent (25%) of the value of the fine, and twenty-five (25%) or the remaining fifty (50%), as the case may be, shall be paid by the transit body. If the breach is accepted, the breach is not paid on the given opportunities, the counter must cancel (100%) the value of the fine plus their corresponding moratorical interests. If the defendant rejects the commission of the infringement, he must appear before the official in public hearing so that he will decree the necessary tests that are requested and the ones of trade that he considers useful. At the same hearing, if possible, the evidence shall be conducted and the defendant shall be punished or acquitted. If you are declared a contractor, you will be charged one hundred percent (100%) of the value of the fine provided for in this code. If the defendant does not appear without fair cause within the following five (5) working days, the transit authority after 30 days of the alleged infringement will follow the process, understanding that it is linked to it, failing in public hearing and being notified in strates. Transit agencies free of charge may conclude agreements for the collection of fines and may establish agreements with the banks for this purpose. Payment of the fine and the appearance can be made anywhere in the country. Paragraph 1o. In places where there are road traffic inspections, competent officials may impose on the offender the appropriate sanction at the place and time where the violation has been committed while respecting the right of defence. Paragraph 2o. As from the entry into force of this law and for a period of twelve (12) months, all drivers who have pending payment of traffic offences, will be eligible for the 50% discount (50%) of the value of the fine and interest.

As to the justification for the changes, the members of the Accidental Commission stated, after summarizing the presidential objection raised against article 24 of the bill, the following ( Congress number 741, 2009, p. 12):

" It was in the attention of that presidential objection that the Congress of the Republic adjusted the text to clarify the effects of the discount for payment within twenty days of the commission of the infringement. However, it is to be acknowledged that in the definitive text of Article 24, arose an ambiguity that was not desired by the legislator, as is derived from the considerations already mentioned, and therefore, in the exercise of the the ability to integrate the text of the project, the relevant clarification will be made, thus ... ".

As you can appreciate, the Congress of the Republic introduced various modifications to the sense and scope of the bill, which go far beyond a problem of syntax, extracting itself in the exercise of its faculties.

fact, as can be seen, under the pretext of reexamining the draft law, the Congress introduced important changes in the regulation of fines. Let's see.

In the initial text, areduction of the fine" was arranged according to which, once the order of comparison was made, if the defendant accepted the commission of the fault, he could, without the need for another administrative action, cancel 50% of the value of the fine within five days. If you paid within the next 20 days, the fine should be paid by 75%. In both cases, a comprehensive transit course would be required, "where 25% will be cancelled and the surplus will be paid to the transit agency". It adds the rule that, if the violation is accepted, it is not paid in the opportunities mentioned above, the defendant must pay 100% of the corresponding fine, plus the delinquent interests.

The law made by Congress, on the other hand, provides for the reduction of traffic fines which, if the defendant accepts the commission of the infringement, will be able, without any other administrative action, to cancel 50% of the value of the fine, within 5 days, or cancel 75% of it if you pay within 20 days. In addition, it provides that in both cases, it will have to go to an integral transit course "where it will cancel a twenty-five (25%) of the value of the fine, and the twenty-five (25%) or fifty (50%) remaining, as the case may be, will pay the transit body".

As you can appreciate, in both cases the way to operate the reduction of the fine is different. In fact, while in the first case the payment of 25% is mentioned, in the second, payment of a "25% of the value of the fine is available, and 25% (25%) or the remaining fifty (50%), as the case may be, will be paid to the other words, the way to liquidate the fines varied substantially from the original text to the remade, the faculty of which the Congress of the Republic lacked, for the simple reason, it insists, that the ruling of the Court did not order to modify, in any way, the way to liquidate the traffic fines or the reduction of the fines. Consequently, the Congress exceeded its constitutional powers in the exercise of its powers.

In this order of ideas, the Court will declare that, in the reworking of Bill 012 of 2006, House, 087 of 2007 Senate, by which the Law 769 of 2002 is reformed (National Code of Transit) and other provisions are dictated, in relation to Article 24 of the same, the Congress has exceeded itself in the exercise of its functions. As a result, modifications made to that will be understood as not made.

III. DECISION

In merit to the above considerations, the Constitutional Court, administering justice,

RESOLVES:

First. Lift the terms to fail.

Second. Declare fulfilled the requirement of article 167 of the Political Constitution, as regards Articles 17 and 21 of Bill 012 of 2006 Chamber, 087 of 2007 Senate I_aj">, for which the Law 769 of 2002 (National Transit Code) is reformed and other provisions are dictated. Consequently, you will declare them EXEQUAL.

Third. Declare that in the reworking of Bill 012 of 2006, House, 087 of 2007 Senate, by which the Law 769 of 2002 (National Transit Code) is reformed and other provisions, in respect of Articles 19 and 25 the Constitution was not disavowed, and therefore, EXEQUAL is declared.

Fourth. Declare that in the reworking of Bill 012 of 2006 House, 087 of 2007 Senate, by which the Law 769 of 2002 (National Transit Code) is reformed and other provisions, in relation to Article 24 of the same, the Congress has been exceeded in the exercise of its functions. Accordingly, the amendments made to the said Article shall be construed as unrealised.

Copy, notify, communicate, insert in the Constitutional Court Gazette, comply and file the file.

Nilson Elias Pinilla Pinilla, President; Mauricio González Cuervo, Juan Carlos Henao Pérez, Gabriel Eduardo Mendoza Martelo, Jorge Ivan Palacio Palacio (OP-120/09); Jorge Ignacio Pretelt Chaljub, Maria Victoria Calle Correa, Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto, Luis Ernesto Vargas Silva, Magistrates; Martha Victoria Sachica Méndez, General Secretariat (Statement C- 856-09).