... ...

Being 9:40 p. m. The Presidency lifts the session and convenes for Tuesday, 16 December 2008, at 10:00 a.m. m. " (is in bold in the original text).

Also in the Senate, the bill's announcement was made in a previous and different session than the one indicated for voting and approval of the report that declared the presidential objections unfounded, as stated in the Act " 37 of the ordinary session of the day Tuesday, December 16, 2008 ", namely (Congress Gazette number 224 of April 21, 2009, pp. 47 y ss., cd. Senate tests):

IV

5. Finally, by trade received by the General Secretariat of the Constitutional Court on April 3, 2009, the President of the Senate of the Republic, in compliance with the order of Chamber Plena A-084 of the current year, referred the bill to at the insistence of the Congress of the Republic, the Court proceeds to decide definitively on the constitutionality of the standard objectionable, in accordance with Articles 167 and 241, numeral 8, of the Constitution and 32 of Decree 2067 of 1991.

6. In this context, it is noted that the process that is being analyzed, completed in the Congress of the Republic and by the National Government on the presidential objections and the congressional insistence, has been adjusted to the procedure established in the Political Constitution and the law; thus, there is no doubt about the due fulfillment of the formal procedure of the objections, the Court goes on to examine in depth the objections to the draft law of the reference.

Fourth. Material analysis of presidential objections

4.1. On the alleged lack of knowledge of the statutory law procedure

For the Executive, the bill under review is contrary to the Political Charter, because it was approved as an ordinary law, and the process of a statutory law should have been imposed, since it develops the right to the health of the children suffering from cancer, which, by the express mandate of the article 152 superior and the case law of this Court, has a fundamental character, and therefore its regulation must be subject to the legislative procedure of that kind of law.

The chambers insist on the sanction of the bill, considering that it is not necessary to provide the statutory law to those proposals whose subject matter, while it is related to fundamental rights, does not affect the essential core of the In the present case, the object of the contested initiative is not intended to restrict the provision of the health service to minors but, on the contrary, seeks to extend its coverage. decreasing the rate of cancer mortality in children, girls, and adolescents.

Before analyzing the objection, the Court should warn that, as the government's approach is generic and covers the whole project, the statement it will make will have the same character, as soon as it will be limited to that alleged vice of Moreover, in such an event, " the effects of the res judicata must be understood related only with the reasons set forth by the Government to object, with the constitutional precepts regarding which the confrontation and with the aspects that have been the subject of the explicit analysis carried out by the Cut "_[7].

According to the case-law_[8], in order to determine whether a particular case requires a statutory law procedure, it should be addressed, preferably, "the material criteria on the purely formal or nominal"; and therefore, "if a rule does not integrally regulate a right but if it affects its essential core, it must be statutory law"; and in relation to the matters set forth in Article 152 above, which must be submitted mandatory to the statutory law referred to in Article 153 ibidem, is The Court has stated that a restrictive interpretation must be made, "to avoid eliminating the general competence granted by the same Charter to the ordinary legislator in Article 150 above"_[9], a task in which it is Apply the following traditional criteria to determine whether a rule is subject to statutory law reserve_[10]:

(i) When the matter concerns a fundamental constitutional right and not a right of another nature;

(ii) When by means of the rule is regulated and complements a fundamental right;

(iii) When such regulation touches the minimum conceptual and structural elements of fundamental rights, and

(iv) When normativity has a claim to integrally regulate the fundamental right.

Likewise, it has pointed out this corporation that in order to establish whether a given matter should have been dealt with by statutory law, it is not enough to determine if its object has any relation with a fundamental right, " since it will also be necessary to ascertain whether the normative content expressed by the law from the material point of view, regulates elements that are close and around the essential content of a fundamental right, and in case of restrictions, limits or conditions on these, must be verified if they have a character proportional and constitutionally reasonable " _[11].

According to the case law of this Court_[12], dealing with fundamental rights and duties (lit. (a) the criteria for determining whether a particular provision which the rules must be dealt with as a statutory law are as follows: (i) that the matter is indeed a matter of fundamental rights and duties; (ii) develop structural elements and basic principles of the right or duty in question; (iii) which relates to content close to the core of the law; (iv) to regulate aspects inherent in the exercise of the right; (v) to enshrine limits, restrictions, exceptions and prohibitions affecting the essential core; (vi) it is a normative body that seeks to regulate in a comprehensive, structural and complete way a fundamental right that refers to the general structure and regulatory principles, but not to the integral and detailed development; and (vii) that the provision relates to major and important aspects of such rights.

On the other hand, the Court has repeatedly stated_[13] that the rules on social security "must not be part of a statutory law necessarily", a criterion that was expressed in the C-408 judgment of the Court of Justice. 1994 (September 15), M. P. Fabio Morón Díaz, who, among other determinations, declared the Law 100 of 1993, which created the System of Integral Social Security, exequible, when he deemed it unnecessary for Congress to impose the statutory law, already that its content does not correspond to the fundamental rights elements of the To submit to that legal category, among others, based on the following considerations:

" The Charter has the power of the legislator to regulate the contents of social security, understanding for such, at a time, a 'compulsory public service' and 'an inalienable right'. Technically this countenance is irreconcilable. However, the integrative interpretation of different concurrent elements in certain constitutional realities makes it possible to affirm that social security is a right of the person who materializes through the provision of a service mandatory character public.

... ...

It is clear to the Court that this normativity on social security should not be subject to regulation through the exception of statutory laws because it does not correspond to the elements of fundamental rights that He wanted the constituent to submit to this legal category, because it is an element of care that comes, in opportunities, from the existence of a labor relationship, and in others, from the simple participation in the social body, and rights free of charge on opportunities and onerous in most cases. Gratuitousness, it cannot be understood, in the headlines of these rights, as an ingredient that can mutate the nature of the same to transform them into fundamental rights; for they are nothing more than developments of the own contents of the social state right ".

Based on the above criteria, the presidential objection will be analyzed considering that the bill being reviewed is titled "for the right to the life of children with cancer in Colombia", which would suggest the statutory procedure would correspond to the statutory procedure (lit. a of Article 152 Const.), as it refers to the right to life, which is indisputably a fundamental right (Articles 11, 44 ibidem); however, leaving aside the nominative criterion and applying instead the material, one reaches a different conclusion.

In effect, in accordance with article 1o of the project under review, its object is to " significantly decrease, the rate of cancer mortality in children and persons under the age of 18, through the guarantee of on the part of the social security actors in health, of all the services they require for their early detection and comprehensive treatment, application of protocols and standardized care guides and with the infrastructure, endowment, resource human and required technology, in Specialized Centers enabled for that purpose ".

In this sense, the bill aims to guarantee the right to social security in health specifically for people under 18 years of age who have cancer (article 2o), through the following mechanisms:

(i) Guarantee of care, through the implementation of a database to speed up the delivery of the service (article 3o).

(ii) Adoption of a comprehensive model of care, which entails the obligation for insurers to authorize all services that the minor requires immediately upon confirmation of the diagnosis (Article 4).

(iii) Creation of Child Cancer Care Units, UACAI (articles 5o to 11).

(iv) Creation of the National Register of Child Cancer and National Single Number, with the purpose of taking the record on the diagnosis, monitoring and evolution of treatment in real time (articles 12, 13).

(v) Creation of the Social Support Service, which involves the provision of a home-made service, including travel expenses, psychosocial and school support (article 13).

(vi) Creation of the National Council of Children's Cancer Advisory Council and the Advisory Departmental Councils, which are responsible for monitoring and monitoring the implementation of the law (Articles 14 and 15).

As can be seen, the subject of the bill under review, although it is clearly related to fundamental rights, such as life and health, does not aim to regulate them in a comprehensive, structural and complete way, it does not develop its basic elements, nor does it refer to the content that is closest to its essential core, as it seeks to ensure that the beneficiaries of the law-persons under 18 years of age, who are in the circumstances described in Article 2o-enjoy the social security service in health in an appropriate and timely manner by the institutions In this case, it is necessary to provide assistance and the implementation of administrative and operational mechanisms.

The proposal also does not enshrine limitations that affect the essential core of the aforementioned fundamental rights, which if established would have affected the constitutionality of the project under review, since as explained, it seeks to advance in the comprehensive care of this painful disease with respect to children and children under 18 years of age, considered subjects of special protection, in order to significantly decrease the rate of cancer mortality in these persons, through the guarantee by the actors of social security in health all procedures and services that are required for their early detection and comprehensive treatment, in specialized locations that have infrastructure and technology.

Thus, article 3o of the initiative states that such procedures will be understood as all the elements and services that are required for the attention of the beneficiaries as consultations, diagnostic support exams, medications, surgical interventions and follow-up to the patient, who will have a management equivalent to the services included in the Mandatory Health Plan, POS, by the insurer or territorial entity; for their part, Article 4 or ib. provides that these services will be ordered immediately and will be provided in the Child Cancer Care Unit, UACAI, in accordance with the criteria of the treating physicians in different specialties and other criteria mentioned there, with the a warning that if the unit does not have that service or has no available capacity, it must forward it to the centre which it is selecting, without limiting the payment of copays or moderating fees, or the periods of absence, independently of the number of weeks listed; lastly, in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 of that paragraph Article, the UACAI must supply the best quality medicines and guarantee the application of preventive treatments, such as annual vaccination against influenza, according to guidelines and protocols, in order to avoid the lack of measure to endanger the effectiveness of the child's treatment.

In sum, as the regulation under consideration does not correspond to the elements that the Charter requires to submit to the statutory law, as far as administrative, operational and care factors are concerned, related to the obligation In order to ensure the efficient provision of the public social security service (Article 365 Const.), it does not restrict but extends and makes effective the guarantee of the fundamental right to the health of children suffering from cancer. It did not require the statutory law, which is why the presidential objection does not prosper.

4.2. On the alleged "disarticulation" of the Social Security System in Health

Maintains the Executive Branch that the proposed bill is unconstitutional, because it establishes restrictions that prevent the State from overcoming the problems of regulating the Social Security System in Health, analyzed by this Court in the This is a problem that, in its opinion, must be overcome harmoniously between different bodies and not only through legislative measures, such as those of the European Parliament, the Commission and the European Parliament. contained in the draft law objected to in its sense.

Argues also that the initiative prevents a coherent public health policy, as it defines the contents of the benefit plan, a matter for determining the National Council of Social Security in Health, CNSSS, prior to the analysis of its relevance and the assessment of a sustainable financing scheme over time, which allows effective access to the benefits it grants.

The legislative chambers insist on the initiative, considering that the delay in regulating the care of childhood cancer in a comprehensive way encourages mortality, basically due to administrative errors in the detection and treatment of children. disease; in his opinion, neither modifies the POS nor contemplates a basket of infinite services, as it seeks the timely supply of medicines and/or procedures formulated by doctors for the treatment of childhood cancer, according to criteria of rationality and quality, in specialised centres and with expert staff, subject In its opinion, it can be defined by the legislator, who, for that matter, considered it necessary to make adjustments to the model of care, in order to prevent minors from dying because of this pathology.

For this Court the objection is not called to thrive, for the following reasons:

the reproach of the executive branch seems to pose a problem that could be solved in the form of an abstract control of constitutionality, it really outlines a question of public policy related to the design and operation of the Social Security System in Health, in particular, to the scheme of child cancer care by the operators of this system, a matter on which this corporation cannot decide, since by express mandate of article 167 above, its competence rests solely on the objections raised on the grounds of This is an unconstitutionality, since those that do not have such a character only encourage the reconsideration of the issue by the plenary of the legislative cells, forcing, in the face of the congressional insistence, the presidential sanction of the bill, without a raise new objections. This is established by the above-mentioned rule that " The president will sanction without being able to object to the bill that, reconsidered, is approved by half plus one of the members of one and another House. Except where the project is objectionable as unconstitutional ".

In addition, when the Constitutional Court, in its role as guardian of the integrity and supremacy of the Charter, decides on the constitutionality of a bill objected to by the government, it can only rule on its formal validity and material (Article 241-8 Const.), for alleged contradiction with the higher order and not for other reasons such as those related to the convenience or opportunity of the measures taken by the legislator_[14]; for that reason, the has pointed out that the Court's examination is circumscribed, prima facie, the analysis and decision of the objections as formulated by the Executive_[15], and hence it cannot involve different aspects, that involve the solution of a problem that is not of nature constitutional.

It is different that in the face of the persistent conculcation of fundamental rights, this corporation, through its Second Chamber of Review of Tútfabrics, would have decided to analyze in Judgment T-760 of 2008 (July 31), M. P. Manuel José Cepeda Espinosa, recurrent problems in the provision of the health service, ordering the Ministry of Social Protection and the Commission on Health Regulation, the adoption of different measures on two main fronts: the benefit plans and the flow of resources to finance such a service, in order to prevent the further development of this service in the future situation.

Such determinations are a natural expression of the powers that the Charter attributes to the judges to know the action of protection (Article 86 Const.) and of the competition that the Political Charter grants to the Constitutional Court to review the judicial decisions on protection (Article 241-9 ib), in accordance with the procedure laid down in Decree 2591 of 1991, which regulates the exercise of that action.

That control, although it seems atypical, is not in fact, because unlike the abstract control of constitutionality, it is aimed at ensuring the effectiveness of fundamental rights through the verification of the rationality of politics. the government and its consistency in the light of the constitutional duties of the State, in relation to the efficient provision of the health service (Articles 49 and 365 Const.), without falling on the design and content of the same or on the mechanisms and programs developed for implementation and execution.

In application of the rule that enables the judge to establish the other effects of the guardianship ruling in order to guarantee to the aggrieved the full enjoyment of the conculcated right, maintaining the competition until the right has been restored (Article 27 Decree 2591 of 1991, final indent)_[16], the Second Review Board issued 14 orders, reserving the right to follow up the implementation of the agreed measures, by requiring the the progress achieved, the establishment of concrete priorities and targets. Precisely, one of those orders is related to the unification of the plan of benefits established in favor of minors, subject to which the following was arranged:

" Twenty first. Order the Commission on Health Regulation to unify the benefits plans for children and children of the contributory and subsidized regime, as it must be adopted before 1 October 2009 and must take into account the adjustments necessary to the subsidized UPC of the children and the girls to guarantee the financing of the expansion in the coverage. In the event that the necessary measures for the unification of the child benefit plan have not been adopted by that date, it is understood that the Mandatory Health Plan of the Contributory Scheme covers children and children. the contributory scheme and the subsidised scheme.

A report on the process of compliance with this order must be sent to the Constitutional Court by March 15, 2009, and communicated to the Colombian Institute of Family Welfare and the Ombudsman's Office.

In case the Commission on Health Regulation is not integrated by November 1, 2008, compliance with this order will be the responsibility of the National Council for Health Social Security. "

As can be seen, the order is not addressed to the Congress but to an executive branch body, which does not mean that the executive branch has lost jurisdiction to regulate the health service, in the right to its proper, timely and appropriate and efficient provision, as well as the definition of the corresponding benefits, as the Government seems to suggest in its objection.

Certainly, this corporation has repeatedly pointed out that in the development of articles 48, 49, 150-23 and 365 superior the legislator enjoys freedom-which in no way is absolute-to regulate the provision of health services, is limited by respect for the values, principles and rights of higher order_[17]; in this sense, it has established that the Congress has wide margin of configuration to determine, for example, which entities of the public sector or private can provide the health service, the regime to be held, the benefits and benefits and other aspects related to the same_[18], as well as defining and defining the institutional mechanisms and the relevant procedures, being able to use different mechanisms and designs to develop and materialize that right_[19].

However, it has insisted that such a faculty has clear constitutional limits in principles, values and higher order rights, which restrict and delimit the freedom of configuration of the legislator in this matter. Among other parameters, the legislator in regulating the right to health must take into account (i) his mandatory and inalienable character; (ii) his or her benefit as a public service whose management, organization, control and supervision is established under State responsibility; (iii) the principles of universality, solidarity and efficiency_[20]; and (iv) respect for the principle of equality_[21], which could be conculcated when the legislator resorts to suspicious or potentially discriminatory differentiation criteria "_[22] , which involve a different treatment of similar or similar situations that merit the same treatment.

In the case under review, the Court finds that the legislature has exercised its power of configuration within the aforementioned limits, since it seeks to make the fundamental right to the health of minors a reality (Article 46). Const.), through the provision of the social security service in accordance with the principles of universality, solidarity and efficiency, by enshrining the integral care of the child suffering from cancer, regardless of whether or not he or she is affiliated with the social security, so that all the procedures you require in the Care Unit are authorized Children's Cancer, UACAI, without limiting copays or moderating fees, or periods of absence, regardless of the number of weeks listed.

Warns this corporation that the initiative far from interfering in the fulfillment of the measures adopted in the Judgment T-760 of 2008, is oriented towards the unification of the plans of benefits of the minors ordered in that providence, as far as the attention of childhood cancer is concerned, it enshrines the guarantee of comprehensive care equally for all children suffering from cancer, without regard to the kind of regime to which they belong or if are simply linked to the Health Social Security System.

In this regard, it is clear to this Court that such a measure does not entail a violation of the right to equality, since it is a breach of the mandate enshrined in Article 13 above, according to which the State must protect especially those people who, because of their economic, physical or mental condition, are in the circumstance of manifest weakness, a group that is indisputably belonging to children with cancer.

Finally, if the possibility of a pronouncement at the headquarters of abstract control on aspects relating to the appropriateness or effectiveness of the project and its implications in the configuration of the policy were accepted for the case in the case of a discussion grace. Nor could the objection be examined, since the government did not present any evidence of its claims, limiting itself to making general disquisitions on the existence of alleged "restrictions". and "obstacles" in the draft law under study, which to its The social security system is not linked to the social security system.

4.2.1. Judgment C-662 of 2009 and the principle of integrality in the General System of Social Security in Health, SGSSS

This Court, in resolving the presidential objections to Bill No. 312 of 2008 Senate, 90 of 2007 Chamber "Law Sandra Ceballos, for which the actions for the comprehensive care of cancer in Colombia are established", has determined the impossibility of issuing a statement of substance because it considers that the Executive Branch has only proposed legal repair of the project in front of the SGSSS, whose content is the potestative of the Congress according to its faculty of configuration on the (a) the provisions of Articles 48 and 49 of the Constitution. On the particular_[23], he indicated:

" 3.4.2. In the judgment of the Court, the objection raised by the Executive Branch does not provide the necessary parameters for the Court to issue a substantive statement, as it does not present a contradiction between the parliamentary initiative and the Political Charter, but rather is restricted to contrasting the draft law with previous rules of a strictly legal nature. In this sense, the objection raised offers a false problem of constitutionality, founded on (i) the lack of knowledge of the control parameter for the case of presidential objections; and (ii) the wrong understanding of the principle of integrality, defined by Judgment T-760 of 2008, from the collection that this decision made of the constitutional case law on the implications, from the perspective of the Political Charter, of the public service of attention in health.

3.4.3. As stated in the legal basis 3.3. of this judgment, the content of Articles 48 and 49 C. P., the Constitution confers on the Congress the power to define the content of the SGSSS, which implies that the organ of representation It has the possibility of establishing different modalities for the provision of the health system, subject only to the material and substantial limits previously analyzed.

For the proposed case, the Executive part of a substantial budget, according to which the fact that Judgment T-760/08 would have recognized as valid, from the constitutional perspective, the institutional arrangements and As provided for in Law 100/03 and Law 1122/07, a limitation arises for the legislator with regard to the regulation of formulas other than the definition of the content of the SGSSS. Therefore, the draft law objected to, as it departs from that initial legislation and, in particular, the powers that such normativity had conferred on the CRES, violates the Constitution.

This objection does not know that the constitutional rules governing the SGSSS, state that it is up to the legislator, autonomously, to define the content of the SGSSS. This implies that the Congress, once the reasons for political and social expediency that correspond to the parliamentary work, can be modified to the health system. In this sense, the assertion that the previous legal norms set a limit for the exercise of the legislative configuration is lacking in support.

This freedom of legislative configuration, in the same way, is not limited by the recognition of the constitutional validity that this Corporation makes of a certain model of organization of the SGSSS. In this regard, it should be noted that in Case T-760/08, the Second Chamber of Review of the Constitutional Court reviewed different rulings of protection, related to failures in medical care provided by the SGSSS and ordered a series of orders. structural to the different instances of the system, aimed at correcting the main shortcomings of the system, which do not know the duties of protection, respect and guarantee of the fundamental right to health.

...

..., the Court established that the structural orders it adopted would be directed to the authorities and instances of the SGSSS, which had set the law. Consequently, it directed concrete forecasts to the Ministry of Social Protection, the CRES and the CNSSS, as institutions to which the Congress had attached competence in defining the specific content of the health system. This decision is then framed in respect of the democratic principle and the constitutional rules which confer on the legislature, and not the judges, the definition of the content of the SGSSS.

However, this decision does not mean, in any way, the petrification of the legislator's ability to establish various institutional arrangements of the SGSSS. Therefore, if the Congress in exercise of its constitutional powers and under the submission of the formal limits and materials referred to above, decides to modify this legal configuration of the health care system, such a forecast, as it happens with the proposed bill, it is a constitutionally legitimate expression of the normative configuration power.

On the other hand, it must be taken into account that the alleged disadvantages in the application of the rules of the bill, due to the collision of competences that it generates between the different institutions of the SGSSS, in particular the CRES is a matter that clearly falls within the question of the appropriateness of the legislative initiative. These matters, as derived from the provisions of Article 167 C. P., are beyond the control of constitutionality by the Court in this instance. "

This corporation emphasizes that the objection raised by the National Government, in study, is identity with that referred to in the 2009 C-662 judgment, while both assume (i) the problems of the Colombian population with cancer under a the same analysis scheme, (ii) the understanding of the principle of integrality, recognized by the Court in Case T-760 of 2008 and (iii) the conception and purposes of the General System of Social Security in Health, SGSSS, as of Health Regulatory Commission, CRES, according to the competition granted by the legislator, sufficient reason for the Court to reiterate what was stated in the ruling as a line of interpretation given to the Executive's approach, which, as it is legal, does not give notice to the mandate of Article 167 above, according to which the jurisdiction falls exclusively on objections raised on grounds of constitutionality.

For the Court the principle of integrality is related to parameters of a legal nature as a computer criterion of the General System of Social Security in Health, SGSSS, in order to guarantee to the people the treatment of health that require, and in particular whether it is a catastrophic illness or if they are committed to life or personal integrity, a system of constitutional competence of the legislator whose content and scope are not feasible to be unknown by means of objection of constitutionality. In this regard, this corporation in the 2009 Providencia C-662, concluded: " (i) recognition in a judicial decision of a certain institutional design of the SGSSS, is not incompatible with the possibility that the The law of the Member States of the European Parliament lays down new rules for regulation, which is subject only to the formal and substantive limits described above; (ii) the principle of integrality, which is based on rules adopted by the Congress in exercise of the said competition of legislative production, no duty is derived constitutional restrictions on the legislative formulas on the content of the SGSSS to only those that stipulate rules for the generality of the population subject to health care; and (iii) the objection raised establishes a false problem of constitutionality that, instead, points to the proper exercise of the competencies of appropriation and budget execution, and implementation of public policies, all of them in charge of the National Government. "

On the basis of the above considerations, the Court finds that in the present case, as in the case of Case C-662 of 2009, it is in the absence of sufficient arguments to rule on the case raised. Therefore, the Chamber will make an inhibitory decision in respect of the objection based on the "disarticulation" of the General System of Social Security in Health.

4.3. On the alleged absence of analysis of the tax impact required by Article 7o of Law 819 of 2003

El Comercio] According to the government, the bill under review presents a procedural vice that affects its constitutionality, because it believes that the Congress approved it without having previously carried out the analysis of the fiscal impact of the bill. having regard to the Medium-Term Fiscal Framework, in compliance with the provisions of Article 7o of Law 819 of 2003 and the provisions of Article 151 above, which orders to meet that requirement; it explains that the obligation imposed on insurers authorise all services requiring the child with cancer, the household of passes and the costs of displacement, psychosocial and school support, "allow to deduce that the technology is involved in the treatment of the disease", increasing the financial burdens of the system, as a result of the expansion of the benefits, both in the contributory and subsidised arrangements.

passage omitted] (El Siglo, 13 March) Congress Dismisses the Reproach Formulated By The Executive Branch -- The government believes that in the light of the Political Charter, the enjoyment of a fundamental right cannot be subject to conditions of financial order, without it implying that In addition to not being in constitutional terms, it ignores the legislator's freedom of configuration in the area of security. social.

order to resolve the government's questioning, it should be borne in mind that in accordance with article 7o of Law 819 of 2003, in the projects on public spending, the Congress must incorporate the study on the fiscal cost of the initiative and the source of additional income generated to finance it. This is established by the rule in reference:

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

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

The Ministry of Finance and Public Credit, at any time during the respective procedure in the Congress of the Republic, will have to render its concept in the face of the consistency of the provisions of the previous paragraph. In no case will this concept be in the way of the Medium-Term Fiscal Framework. This report will be published in the Congressional Gazette.

Government initiative bills, which will raise additional expenditure or a reduction in revenue, will have to contain the corresponding substitute source for decreased expenditure or revenue increases, which will have to be be analyzed and approved by the Ministry of Finance and Public Credit. In the territorial entities, the procedure provided for in the preceding paragraph shall be set before the respective Secretariat of Finance or who does its own times. "

This Court has analyzed the meaning and scope of the previous provision_[24], as well as the implications that its non-compliance carries on the constitutional validity of the initiatives on public expenditure. In Case C-502 of 2007 (July 4), M. P. Manuel José Cepeda Espinosa, in which he studied the constitutionality of the statutory bill number 34/05 Senate and 207/05 Camara, " for which the article 227 of the Political Constitution, in relation to the direct election of Andean parliamentarians ", has laid the following doctrine, which is transferred in extensive:

" Article 7o of Law 819 of 2003 requires that in any bill, ordinance or agreement that orders expenditures or grants tax benefits, it is made explicit what its fiscal impact is and its compatibility with the Framework is established. Medium-term fiscal year issued by the National Government. For this purpose, it has to be stated that in the project's explanatory statements and in each of the papers for debate, the tax costs of the projects and the source of additional income to cover the aforementioned costs must be expressly included. In the same way, it states that during the process of the projects the Ministry of Finance must render a concept about the tax costs that have been estimated for each of the projects, as well as the source of income to cover them and on the compatibility of the project with the Medium Term Fiscal Framework.

Evidently, the rules contained in Article 7o of Law 819 of 2003 constitute an important instrument for the rationalization of legislative activity, in order for it to be carried out with the knowledge of The tax costs generated by each of the laws approved by the Congress of the Republic. They also allow the laws to be enacted to be in harmony with the economic situation of the country and with the economic policy outlined by the authorities concerned. This certainly contributes to generating order in public finances, which has a positive impact on the country's macroeconomic stability.

In the same way, compliance with the requirements set out in Article 7o must have a favorable effect on the effective application of the laws, since the approval of the laws will only occur after the foreseeable fiscal impact and the possibilities to finance it. This indicates that the approval of the laws will not be accompanied by the permanent uncertainty about the possibility of fulfilling them or of developing the public policy in them. Thus, the instruments contained in the article 7 or analyzed can contribute to the overcoming of that existing tradition in the country-of such deleterious effects in the Social State of Law-which leads to the passing of laws without being incorporated into the design of the necessary elements-administrative, budgetary and technical-to ensure its effective implementation and to monitor the obstacles that hinder its full, timely and full compliance.

Thus, the aforementioned article 7o of Law 819 of 2003 stands as an important tool both to rationalize the legislative process and to promote the application and enforcement of the laws, as well as the effective implementation of public policies. But this does not mean that this article can be interpreted as constituting a barrier for Congress to exercise its legislative function or a procedural burden that falls on the legislature exclusively.

35. Certainly, given the current conditions in the Congress of the Republic, it is admitted that Article 7o of Law 819 of 2003 constitutes a procedural requirement, which creates an additional and exclusive burden on the Congress in training. of the bills, it means, in practice, to considerably fence the power of Congress to legislate and to grant the Ministry of Finance a sort of veto power over the bills.

On the one hand, the requirements contained in the article assume that the congressmen-or the benches-have sufficient knowledge and tools to estimate the tax costs of a legal initiative, to determine the source with which they could be financed and to assess their projects against the Medium-Term Fiscal Framework. In reality, to accept that the conditions laid down in Article 7o of Law 819 of 2003 constitute a requirement of processing that it is incumbent upon it to comply only and exclusively to the Congress disproportionately reduces the capacity of initiative The law is based on the principle of the separation of the Public Power Ramas, in so far as the autonomy of the legislature is seriously injured.

Precisely, the almost insurmountable obstacles that would be generated for the legislative activity of the Congress of the Republic would lead to the granting of a form of veto power to the Minister of Finance on the bills in Parliament. The Ministry of Finance has the necessary elements to be able to make estimates of the tax costs, to establish where the necessary resources can arise to assume the costs of a project and to determine the compatibility of the projects with the Medium Term Fiscal Framework. He would have to go to the congressmen or the benches who want to present a bill that involves spending. In this way, the Ministry would decide which requests it serves and the order of priority to do so. With this, he would acquire the power to determine the legislative agenda, in the sense of the autonomy of the Congress.

But, in addition, the Ministry could decide not to intervene in the process of a bill that would create fiscal impact or simply disregard the project's process. This could lead to the project being approved without having listened to the position of the Ministry and without knowing in a certain way whether the project is in line with the macroeconomic requirements set out in the Fiscal Framework of the Medium Term. In reality, this situation has already been presented in the case analyzed in Case C-874 of 2005, and the President of the Republic objected to the bill because the Ministry of Finance had not conceptualized the legal initiative. However, as was recalled, the Court stated that the Ministry of Finance's omission did not affect the validity of the legislative process.

36. For all of the above, the Court considers that the first three points of Article 7o of Law 819 of 2003 should be understood as parameters of rationality of the legislative activity, and as a burden initially incumbent on the Ministry of Hacienda, once the Congress has valued, with the information and the tools it has at its disposal, the tax incidents of a certain bill. This means that they are instruments to improve legislative work.

is to say, the aforementioned article should be interpreted as meaning that its purpose is to obtain that the laws that are dictated take into account the macroeconomic realities, but without creating insurmountable barriers in the exercise of the the legislative function and the creation of a legislative veto power in the head of the Finance Minister. And in that process of legislative rationality the main burden rests with the Ministry of Finance, which is the one that has the data, the officials ' teams, and the economic expertise. Therefore, in the event that the congressmen process a bill incorporating erroneous estimates on the fiscal impact, on how to deal with these new expenses or on the compatibility of the project with the Medium Term Fiscal Framework, It is up to the Finance Minister to intervene in the legislative process to illustrate to the Congress about the economic consequences of the project. And the Congress will have to receive and value the concept issued by the Ministry. Nevertheless, the burden of demonstrating and convincing the congressmen about the incompatibility of a certain project with the Fiscal Framework of the Medium Term is on the Finance Minister.

On the other hand, it is necessary to reiterate that if the Ministry of Finance does not participate in the course of the project during its formation in the Congress of the Republic, it may well mean that the legislative process is vitiated by the failure to take account of the conditions laid down in Article 7 of Law 819 of 2003. Since the main burden in presenting the tax consequences of the projects is the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Finance's omission to inform the congressmen about the problems presented by the project does not affect the validity of the legislative process and/or the relevant law ".

Later, in Case C-315 of 2008 (April 9), M. P. Jaime Córdoba Trivino, where the presidential objections were analyzed to the Bill of Law No. 18 of 2006 Senate, 207 of 2007 House, " for which they establish rebates In the sanctions for the remits of the compulsory military service ", this corporation synthesized the following rules, in terms of the content and scope of the forecast of the fiscal impact to the interior of the bills:

-The obligations laid down in Article 7 of Law 819/03 constitute a parameter of legislative rationality, which is aimed at fulfilling constitutionally valuable purposes, including the order of finance. public, macroeconomic stability and the effective implementation of laws. The latter as a preliminary study of the compatibility between the content of the bill and the projections of the economic policy, decreases the margin of uncertainty regarding the material execution of the forecasts legislative.

-The mandate of adequacy between the justification of the bills and the planning of economic policy, however, cannot be understood as a requirement for the approval of the legislative initiatives, whose It is only the Congress. As such (i), the Congress lacks the technical assessment bodies to determine the fiscal impact of each project, the determination of the additional sources of financing and the compatibility with the medium-term fiscal framework; and (ii) " To accept a interpretation of this nature would constitute an unreasonable burden on the Legislator and grant a correlative power of veto to the Executive, through the Ministry of Finance, in respect of the Congress ' competence to make the laws. A power of this character, which involves a barrier in the constitutional function of normative production, is shown to be incompatible with the balance between public authorities and the democratic principle.

-If this mandate is considered as a mechanism of legislative rationality, its compliance initially corresponds to the Ministry of Finance and Public Credit, once the Congress has valued, through the tools that It has at its disposal the compatibility between the expenditure generated by the legislative initiative and the projections of the economic policy outlined by the Government. Thus, if the Executive considers that the Chambers have carried out an analysis of the tax impact in error, it is up to the Ministry of Commerce to participate in the legislative procedure, in order to illustrate the economic consequences to the Congress. of the project.

-Article 7 of Law 819/03 cannot be interpreted as such that the lack of competition from the Ministry of Finance and Public Credit within the legislative process affects the constitutional validity of the procedure. respective ".

In relation to the observance of the requirement laid down in Article 7o of Law 819 of 2003, recently in Judgment C-1197 of 2008 (December 4), M. P. Nilson Pinilla Pinilla, this Court noted:

" In setting the meaning and scope of the requirement in comment, the case law has not intended anything other than to fix the roles of government and Congress in the analysis of the fiscal impact of proposals on public spending, leaving aside the It is clear that the leading role corresponds to the first, as soon as it is obliged to illustrate and to prevent it from the economic implications of the proposal, without the development of this work being a veto or obstacle in the approval of the project.

9. Thus, the Government and the Congress are called to comply with the requirement laid down in Article 7o of Law 819 of 2003, in the form set out in the case-law, and the first one must act on the basis of the proposal made by the Chambers. legislation. But in order to fulfill the requirement provided for in Article 7 of Law 819 of 2003, the Government is not enough to inform the Congress of the existence of budgetary difficulties, but it must support and quantify based on studies technical, in which it consists of the incongruity that he adduces of the bill with "the fiscal perspectives that the Nation has set for the next four-year term."

10. If the Congress does not comply with this requirement by making explicit the fiscal impact of the public spending proposal and the source of financing, in the manner indicated in that provision, ignoring the technical opinion that The Ministry of Finance and Public Credit, the Ministry of Finance and Public Credit, generates a procedural vice in the process of the bill that could eventually lead to its unconstitutionality, since it would be in the face of the non-observance of an organic standard, the condition of the legislative activity in the terms referred to in Article 151 above. "

In the case under review, this Court observes that in the explanatory memorandum of the Bill number 094 of 2007 Senate of the Republic_[25], filed on October 18, 2006, before the Secretariat of that corporation (f. 454 cd. Congressman German Ivan Moreno Rojas justified the initiative aimed at guaranteeing the right to life for children with cancer in Colombia, with the following reasons for financial order:

" It is calculated that on average, the monthly cost of a minor suffering from Cancer, is in the order of $2,000,000. If we assume an incidence of 1,000 patients per year in Colombia, and an average duration of 24 months per treatment, the total cost would amount to $4 billion a month and $48 billion a year.

According to the response of the Ministry of Social Protection, Health from the Promotion and Prevention of Diseases, to the last level of care is covered by the Payment Units per Capitation, both contributive as subsidized and not covered by these by the Catastrophic Events Sub-account, ECAT, Solidarity and Guarantee Fund, Fosyga.

Consequently, we consider that the treatments of Cancer Children in Colombia are guaranteed and what is required is to adapt the models of care, administrative aspects as to the opportunity of the authorizations, the supply of quality medicinal products, the provision of the service and, above all, the Care Units, which must be appropriate according to the requirements set out in the technical annex to the draft law.

While the existing Children's Cancer Units will require adjustments and investments in infrastructure or endowment, the bill provides for a revision of the existing rates as well as the possibility, which with the support of the Advisory Councils are managed resources of national and international cooperation, to motivate the enabling of Children's Cancer Units in Colombia, according to the population needs and regionalization carried out by the Ministry of Social Protection "_[26].

The bill was distributed to the Permanent Constitutional Commission of the Senate of the Republic (f. 364), which adopted it in the first debate on 13 May 2007 (f. 243. (c) (initial), based on the respective paper_[27] which reproduced, in essence, the arguments entered in the explanatory memorandum, pointing out, as regards the financing of the proposal, that " is calculated to average the total cost of a child suffering from cancer is in the order of 80 million "; the plenary of that corporation in session on July 17, 2008 (f. 177 cd. The Commission approved the initiative with the same justification.

In the House of Representatives, under the number 336 of 2008, the revised draft was approved by the Seventh Commission in September 2, 2008 (fs. 110 and 111 cd. ), welcoming the approaches contained in the respective paper_[28]. The project passed into the second debate in the plenary of that same legislative cell_[29], being discussed and approved in the corresponding session of November 4, 2008 (f. 63 cd. ).

Within the process of the initiative, the Ministers of Social and Finance Protection and Public Credit were involved, who in communication of September 9, 2008 (f. 124 cd. The second of these dispatches was reiterated by the second of these offices by trade of October 20 of the same year (f. 67 cd. ) presented the following observations on the financial aspect of the project:

" ... while in principle it may be thought that the financial effect of the legislative initiative on this matter is neutral, it is true that from the wording and scope of the proposed articles, it cannot be reached This conclusion ... the legislative initiative not only involves state-of-the-art technology for the treatment of the disease, but also quality conditions other than those currently available to finance the System and even the country ... it is eliminated by the criterion of rationality and efficiency as to which the supply of services does not included in the POS must be accompanied by the lack of ability to pay the population, alternatives of higher cost effectiveness etc. Aspects that should also be considered, since the right to health, although fundamental, is neither absolute nor unlimited, as seems to be the case in this bill for this pathology.

...

Thus, the extension of the Mandatory Health Plan-POS, of both regimes, which is what the bill in the last generates, without regard to criteria for the existence of resources that finance it, nor the cost of effectiveness, attention to the most relevant risks of the population, quality measure and technology available in the country, among others, affects the balance of the system, equilibrium that is precarious in the case of the Contributory Regime, because the resources that raises the Compensation Sub-Account barely covers the current annual expenditure represented by the UPC must recognize for each affiliate, according to the age group, and the expense that represent the recoveries by means of tutoring and Scientific Technical Committees, that significantly compromise the availability of the resources of the Fosyga ".

It is appreciated that the government does not support or quantify, based on technical studies, what the incongruity of the bill consists of with the fiscal perspectives that the nation has set for the next four years; that is, it does not evaluate the tax impact of the initiative, but it merely states in the abstract that the draft law of the reference changes the financial balance of the Social Security System in Health, thus ignoring the obligation imposed on it by Article 7 of Law 819 of 2003, of "rendering concept" on the fiscal viability of the Nor did it offer the congressmen support and technical illustration on the economic consequences of the project, a government omission which, as it has previously said, cannot become an insurmountable obstacle to the autonomous exercise of the of the legislative function by the Congress of the Republic.

As has been stated by this Court_[30], the action of the Ministry of Finance and Public Credit is enforceable and is subject to compliance with the duty laid down in Article 7o of Law 819 of 2003 to issue an opinion on the impact of the In the case of the Court of Justice, the Court of Justice has held that, in the case of the Court of Justice, the Court of Justice of the European Court of Justice, the Court of Justice of the European Court of Justice of the European Court of Justice, the initiative, both in the explanatory statement and in the papers.

It is not enough to remember that in previous opportunities where this same point was analyzed, the Court declared the Executive's objection to be unfounded when it found that the legislative chambers had justified and analyzed "expressly" the fiscal impact of the project and the government, for its part, had failed to conceptualize the economic effects of the proposal, or had intervened without providing a detailed, sustained and concrete study of this impact, how it happens in the subject that is parsed_[31].

passage omitted] [passage omitted] [passage omitted] (el Comercio, 22 April) Congress Does Not Doubt Congress -- For all of the above, there is no doubt that in the approval of the bill under review, the Congress did not incur a vice of unconstitutionality for alleged failure to comply with the mandate of article 7o of Law 819 of 2003. which will dismiss the objection presented in that regard by the Government.

4.4. Objection to Article 5 of the project

According to the Government, article 5 of the draft law does not know the right to free enterprise of private PSUR (Article 333 Const.), by obliging all those belonging to levels III or IV to form Units of Cancer Care. Children, UACAI, forgetting that by their specialty they could be interested in the attention different pathologies, decision that being adopted by the Congress without further analysis, also vulnera the constitutional principle of efficiency in the delivery of the health service (Article 49 ib.)

For the Chambers the reproach lacks sustenance, since the norm does not establish an obligation for all PSUR but only in respect of those who want to offer services of pediatric onco-hematology and belong to levels III or IV of complexity, as such institutions in having intensive care units are able to ensure adequate care for children suffering from cancer.

The objection is not called to thrive, for the following reasons:

The Executive's approach does not know the constitutional basis for the provision of the health service by individuals and also the case law of this corporation that has repeatedly stated that the mixed model adopted by the legislator, In which the State and the private parties are present, it is unfolding in an environment of economic freedom where, first of all, it is sought that " the private initiative is channelled towards objectives of social interest and that the advantages of the free competence and rationality in the allocation of the own resources of a free scheme company, translate into expanding coverage and improve the quality of services " _[32].

For the Court the exercise of economic freedom and free competition in health matters, " can only be given within the scope that the legislator has foreseen for the effect, and within the rigorous conditions of regulation, surveillance and control that stem from the constitutional responsibility that the State has in this social sector "_[33]; therefore, it has considered that the state intervention in this field is intense and develops under the (i) the application of Article 1 (1) (a) of Regulation (EC) No 51996; State, with the corresponding limitation of economic freedom (Articles 150-21, 333 and 334 Const.), and those relating to the regulation and inspection of the professions (Article 26b), State intervention in public services (Article 6) 365 ib.) and health care in particular (articles 48, 49 ib.)_[34].

According to this corporation, because it is an activity in which the General Health System's money is handled by private companies, " state control preserves public trust, because it allows these entities to count on an administrative, technical, financial and professional structure that ensures the regular, continuous and efficient provision of the health service to affiliates "_[35].

As regards the meaning of the principle of efficiency in the provision of the social security service in health, the case-law has stated that this concept, " turns out to be much wider than simple efficiencies. technical and economic, since it involves the provision of an essential public service, as is health, which in turn is a constitutional right and is interrelated with other values, principles and fundamental rights. The provision of the health service in Colombia cannot be understood as a simple 'health market', governed by the laws of supply and demand. The guarantee of economic, social and cultural rights does not depend on criteria of simple utility or particular economic benefit "_[36].

However, this Court has pointed out that while the freedom of enterprise admits limits imposed by the intervention in the economy that is carried out by mandate of the law for the fulfilment of the general interest that the Constitution mentions, "this intervention cannot remove from root the said freedom and must obey criteria of reasonableness and proportionality"_[37]; for such reason it has considered_[38] that such (i) it must necessarily be carried out by the Ministry of Law; (ii) it cannot affect the (iii) it must comply with adequate and sufficient grounds to justify the limitation of the said guarantee; (iv) it must comply with the principle of solidarity; and (v) it must meet the criteria of reasonableness and proportionality.

Under these premises, the determination contained in Article 5 cannot be found to be unreasonable, since it pursues that the activity carried out by the individuals providing the public health service, for the case of the PSUR, will comply with the In order to improve the quality of the health service (Article 49 Const.), the measure is also not disproportionate, because, as the legislative chambers explain, the obligation to provide services is not disproportionate. count on Child Cancer Care Units, UACAI, does not compromise all private PSUR This is the case for the level III or IV of complexity, which are those with intensive care units and therefore have the capacity to provide pediatric onco-hematology services to children suffering from cancer, which it fulfils the constitutional task of providing a better social security service to a vulnerable population, minors (Articles 13, 46, 49 and 365 ib).

This is a measure of intervention adjusted to the Constitution, since it is carried out by means of a law issued by the Congress of the Republic; it does not affect the essential core of the freedom of enterprise of the individuals who are IPS owners, as it has been seen, commits only those that have the technical capacity to offer cancer treatment; it is based on reasons of solidarity with regard to persons considered subjects of special protection The Constitution, the minors, to whom they must be assured with a prevalent character, among other rights fundamental, life, physical integrity, health and social security (articles 1o and 44 Const.); and finally, it serves the criterion of efficiency in the delivery of the health service, as it aims to make better use of the platform technical and scientific of the IPS on which the obligation to implement the Child Cancer Care Units, UACAI, falls.

On the basis of the foregoing reasons, this Court will declare unfounded the unconstitutionality objections raised by the National Government to Bill No. 094 of 2007 Senate, 336 of 2008 Chamber, " for the right to the Life of children with cancer in Colombia " and, consequently, will declare the referred project exequable.

VIII. DECISION

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

RESOLVES:

First. Declare unfounded the unconstitutionality objections raised by the National Government to Bill 094 of 2007 Senate, 336 of 2008, House, "for the right to life of children with cancer in Colombia" and, consequently, exclusively with respect to them, declare exequable the referred project.

Second. Inhibit to adopt a substantive decision regarding the presidential objection founded on the "disarticulation" of the General System of Social Security in Health, due to the lack of sufficient reasons for make a judgment of constitutionality on the matter, as expressed in the fundamentals 4.2. and 4.2.1. of this providence.

Notify, communicate, insert into the Constitutional Court Gazette , and file the case. Comply.

Nilson Pinilla Pinilla, President; Juan Carlos Henao Pérez, Maria Victoria Calle Correa, Luis Ernesto Vargas Silva, Gabriel Eduardo Mendoza Martelo, Mauricio González Cuervo, Jorge Ignacio Pretelt Chaljub, Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto, Jorge Ivan Palacio Palacio, Magistrates; Martha Victoria Sachica of Moncaleano, General Secretariat. (Judgment C-850/09)

* * *

1 Cfr. C-887 of 2007 (October 24), M. P. Nilson Pinilla Pinilla, among others.

2 Cfr. C-923 of 2000 (July 19), M. P. José Gregorio Hernández; C-1249 of 2001 (November 28), M. P. Marco Gerardo Monroy Cabra and C-070 of 2004 (February 3), M. P. Clara Inés Vargas Hernández, among others.

3 Cfr. C-268 of 1995 (June 22) and C-380 of 1995 (August 30), M P. Vladimiro Naranjo Mesa; C-292 of 1996 (July 4), M. P. Julio Cesar Ortiz and C-028 of 1997 (January 30), M. P. Alejandro Martínez Caballero.

4 Auto 311 of 2006 (November 8), M. P. Marco Gerardo Monroy Cabra.

5 Article 8 of the Legislative Act 01 of 2003 provides: " No bill will be put to a vote in session other than that previously announced. The notice that a project will be put to the vote will be given by the Presidency of each chamber or commission in session other than that in which the vote will be held. "

6 C-576 of 2006 (July 25), M. P. Manuel José Cepeda Espinosa. S. V. Jaime Araujo Renteria.

7 C-256, 1997 (May 28), M. P. José Gregorio Hernández Galindo.

8 C-646 of 2001 (June 20), M. P. Manuel José Cepeda Espinosa.

9 C-687 of 2002 (August 27), M. P. Eduardo Montealegre Lynett.

10 C-646 of 2001

11 C-687 of 2002.

12 C-319 of 2006 (April 25), M. P. Alvaro Tafur Galvis.

13 C-510 of 2008 (May 21), M. P. Manuel José Cepeda Espinosa.

14 C-865 of 2001 (August 15), M. P. Eduardo Montealegre Lynett.

15 Cfr. C-650 of 2003, C-482 of 2002 and C-256 of 1997.

16 "In any event, the judge shall establish the other effects of the judgment for the specific case and maintain the jurisdiction until the right or the causes of the threat are fully restored."

17 C-1489 of 2000 (November 2), M. P. Alejandro Martínez Caballero

18 C-033 of 1999 (January 27), M. P. Carlos Gaviria Diaz; C-1041 of 2007 (December 4), M. P. Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto.

19 C-463, 2008 (May 14), M. P. Jaime Araujo Renteria.

20 C-623, 2004, M. P. Rodrigo Escobar Gil.

21 C-671 of 2002, M. P. Eduardo Montealegre Lynett.

22 C-671 of 2002.

23 C-662/09 (September 22), M. P. Luis Ernesto Vargas Silva.

24 Cfr. C-947 of 1999 (December 1o), M. P. José Gregorio Hernández Galindo; C-911 of 2007 (October 31), M. P. Jaime Araujo Renteria.

25 Published in the Congress Gazette number 406 of August 27 October 2007.

26 Congress Gazette number 406, August 27, 2007.

27 Congress Gazette number 631 December 5, 2007.

28 Congress Gazette number 256 of June 7, 2007, page 10.

29 Congress Gazette number 706 October 10, 2008.

30 C-1197 of 2008 (December 4), M. P. Nilson Pinilla Pinilla.

31 C-315 of 2008 (April 9), M. P. Jaime Córdoba Trivino and C-1141 of 2008 (November 19), M. P. Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto.

32 C-974 of 2002 (November 13), M. P. Rodrigo Escobar Gil.

33 C-616 of 2001 (June 13), M. P. Rodrigo Escobar Gil.

34 Ib.

35 Ib.

36 C-1041 of 2007 (December 4), M. P. Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto.

37 Ib.

38 C-615 of 2002 (August 8), M. P. Marco Gerardo Monroy Cabra.