If Mr. President, the following projects are announced for the plenary session on December 17 or for the next Plenary Session in which bills or Legislative Acts are discussed, for the following session.

The report was effectively submitted to the House of Representatives and approved on December 17, 2009, by ordinary vote,_[29] as stated in the Act No. 229 of that date, published in the i_aj">Congress Gazette number 45, 2010, with the required quorum and majorities._[30]

The Court finds compliance with the formal requirements required for the prior announcement of the vote of any bill in Article 8or Legislative Act 01, 2003, to be satisfied. know: (i) the announcement must be made by the Presidency of the chamber or the Commission in a separate session prior to that in which the vote on the draft, or in its absence, the Secretary of the respective legislative cell for instructions, must be carried out of the Presidency; (ii) the date of the vote must be true, that is to say, determined or, less, determinable; and (iii) the bill cannot be voted on in a session other than that for which it has been announced._[31]

In the case under examination, the Court finds that the announcements made for the vote on the presidential objections report met the constitutional requirements outlined, as the announcement was made within the session. concerned, by the Secretary on the instructions of the President of the respective chamber, in order to comply with the requirements of Article 8or the Legislative Act 01 of 2003, for a date determined and that the vote was taken on the scheduled date for this.

The Constitutional Court also finds that the presidential objections report was voted on both in the Senate of the Republic, and in the House of Representatives with the absolute majorities required by the article 167 of the Letter and 10 of article 119 of Act 5th of 1992, given that they counted with the favorable vote of most of their members._[32]

The President of the Senate of the Republic referred to the Constitutional Court on January 18, 2010, the project and the presidential objections, so that this Corporation would decide on its exilibility._[33] This Corporation finally received this document on 28 January 2010.

El Tiempo] It follows that compliance with the two conditions that are required for the Constitutional Court to issue a statement on the proposed objections has been verified, in order to resolve the constitutional controversy. raised between the Government and the Congress, namely: (i) that within the perentory terms outlined in Article 166 Superior, the bill is objected to by the President of the Republic for reasons of unconstitutionality at the time of ruling on its sanction, and (ii) that the previous condition of the Congress insist, that is, that it rejects the objections according to the procedure provided for this effect in the Political Charter.

Therefore, it is up to this Corporation to decide on the exequability of the relevant provisions of the project, for which it will study the objections raised by the Government. The Court warns, however, that the effects of res judicata of the present judgment as to the conformity of the procedure of the objections with the Constitution is limited to the aspects studied in it, and does not include others on which no analysis has been performed.

3. Approach to substantive issues

Taking into account that the Court has consistently held that it is beyond the control of constitutionality to advance examinations aimed at determining the appropriateness of a defendant provision shall be declared inhibited in respect of the objections of this kind raised to the draft law studied.

In the letter by which the National Government supports the objections filed against the Bill of Law No. 253 of 2009 Senate, 374 of 2009, House, for which the Law 75 of 1989 is amended, it states that it is violating Article 345 and 346 in establishing an imperative order for the Executive to include an expense in the budget. According to the Executive, the change of name of the airport generates costly updates of the navigation cards, aeronautical navigation documents and modifications of the conventions and treaties. For its part, the Congress of the Republic, in insisting, considers that the article objecting does not contradict the constitutional contents nor the legal requirement highlighted in the letter of objections, for by changing the name of the airport. Dorado, is not giving an imperative order to the government for the inclusion of public spending.

Thus, in order to decide in depth on the objections raised, the Court considers it essential to reiterate its case-law concerning the difference between the authorization of the expenditure and the order to carry it out, in order to determine, in the light of these criteria, which is the situation of the object.

4. The constitutionality of rules that authorize the realization of certain expenses

4.1. This Corporation has pronounced on multiple occasions about the constitutionality of rules authorizing the realization of certain expenses._[34] In general, the Court has pointed out that such authorizations do not violate the distribution of competences between the Legislator and the Government.

Since very early in the case law of the Constitutional Court,_[35] this Corporation has pointed out that, with the exception of express constitutional restrictions, the Congress can pass laws that carry public expenditure, but it corresponds to the Government will decide whether or not to include in the respective draft budget those expenses, which is why Congress cannot, when it decrees an expense, "order budget transfers to arbitrate the respective resources"._[36] " La Nacion] The parliamentary initiative to present bills that decree public spending does not entail the modification or addition of the general budget of the Nation (...) Government initiative, include in the Annual Budget Law the items needed to address these expenses ..."._[37].

According to the jurisprudential line in the matter, judicial scrutiny to determine whether in this respect a law is constitutional is to analyze whether the respective norm enshrines "an imperative mandate addressed to the executive",_[38] case in which it is inexequable," or if, on the contrary, it is a law that contracts to decree a public expenditure and, therefore, to constitute a sufficient legal title for the eventual inclusion of the corresponding item, in the law of budget",_[39] event in which it is perfectly legitimate"._[40] In Case C-782 of 2001,_[41] for example, the Court declared an exequable legal provision_[42] that had been issued for the purpose of exalt the memory of a public character and by which authorized the government to make certain expenses.

On the other hand, the Court has declared inexequible legal norms or bills objected to by the President of the Republic, which, instead of authorizing the government to make certain expenses, order it to do so._[43] To determine if a provision orders or authorizes an expense, the Court has highlighted that the language used is relevant. By judgment C-486 of 2002,_[44] the Court declared an exequible provision authorizing the Government to include within the General Budget of the Nation, budget appropriations for the execution of specific infrastructure works in the municipality of Condotus. He said then:

"[L] as expressions used by the legislator are relevant, and (...) in them must be looked at, first of all, the objective they pursue._[45] Thus," if your objective is to decrease expenditure, it is clear that the rule contains an enabling so that the government can include it in the Budget Law. However, if it is to order the inclusion of the respective item in the expenditure budget, the rule would establish a mandate or obligation on the head of the Government, which in light of the Political Constitution would be unacceptable. "_[46]

(...)

The Court warns that the ruling verb of Article 2o of the bill does not mandate the execution of a series of public works, but establishes an authorization to carry out an appropriation. If such is the sense of the rule, it is clear that the article is constitutional, as Congress is in some way encroaching on the government's competence.

Note that the objectionable rule does not contain an order to the National Government, but is limited to authorizing it to include spending on the draft budget. In fact, the expression "authorization" does not impose a mandate on the government; it merely seeks to enable the National Government to make the necessary budget appropriations, which is nothing other than to authorize it, in the terms of the article 346 of the Letter, to include the respective expense in the draft budget law._[47]

Likewise, in the 2003 C-399 Statement_[48] this Corporation declared several rules that authorized the Government " to be assigned in the budget addition of the 2002 term and within the budget of the 2003 and the following vigencies, the sums necessary to implement the infrastructure of social interest that in the municipality of Seville are required and this one does not have the necessary resources, as well as for the recovery of its historical heritage and the consolidation of cultural, artistic and cultural capital intellectual"._[49] The Court decided that such expenses would be related to the performance of works by means of the co-financing mechanism and, therefore, the exception provided for in Article 102 referred to._[50]

More recently, in Judgment C-290 of 2009,_[51] the Constitutional Court reiterated the following:

" The vocation of the law that decrees an expense is, then, to constitute a legal title for the eventual inclusion of the respective items in the general budget of the Nation and if the legislator is limited to authorizing the public expenditure so that, later, the government can determine whether or not it includes in any of the future fiscal vigencies, it is clear that it works within the framework of constitutionally designed competences and that, by this aspect, does not exist The law or the draft law and the Constitution are contrary to the law.

" Whenever the Congress of the Republic has included the authorization of spending in a law, the government has the competence to incorporate the items authorized in the draft budget, but it can also abstain from to do so, because it assists him with a margin of decision that allows him to act in this sense and " according to the availability of the resources and the priorities of the Government, always in the hands of the principles and general objectives outlined in the National Plan The Committee on Development, the organic statute of the budget and the provisions of the territorial regime by handing out the powers between the Nation and the territorial entities. "_[52]

" The budgetary allocation for the implementation of authorized expenditure by law is possible and the decision on its inclusion is for the government, then the legislator has no attribution to force the government to includes in the budget some specific item and, therefore, when prior legal authorization the Congress adds an order with an imperative or a perentorium character directed to the appropriation in the budget the indispensable sums to execute the authorized expenditure, the law or the bill are affected by a vice of unconstitutionality arising from the lack of knowledge of the allocation of powers relating to public expenditure between the legislator and the Government._[53]

" Since the Congress authorizes the spending, but cannot order that the government should allocate the sums of money to be executed, the Court should analyze whether the article whose constitutionality is analyzed on the basis of the National Government objection, contains a simple authorization or "presses the expense" by establishing the order to incorporate into the general budget of the Nation the items to execute the intended expense. "

4.2. Moreover, in relation to the requirement of Article 7or Law 819 of 2003,_[54] this Corporation has pronounced itself on several occasions to reiterate that the requirement there is responsibility of both the Executive and the Legislative,_[55] but it is not a limitation for Congress to develop its legislative function._[56]

Pursuant to Article 7or Act 819 of 2003,_[57] in any draft law, ordinance, or agreement that orders expenses or grants tax benefits, must be made explicit which is its fiscal impact and its compatibility with the medium-term fiscal framework that the National Government gives annually. For this purpose, it has to be stated that in the project's explanatory statements and in each of the papers for discussion, 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.

That is why this Corporation has recognized that the aforementioned article 7or Law 819 of 2003 is an important tool both to rationalize the legislative process and to promote the implementation and enforcement of laws, as well as the effective implementation of public policies._[58] However, as this Corporation has also highlighted, this tool does not constitute a barrier for Congress to exercise its legislative function or a burden of processing that falls on the legislative process exclusively, Since it is the Government which has the technical elements to carry out the estimates of the tax costs of a given project. Therefore, as the case law of this Corporation has pointed out, once the Congress has valued, with the tools at its disposal, if a project has or does not have fiscal implications, it is up to the government to participate during the course of the The Ministry of Finance and Public Credit are responsible for the legislative procedure to specify these estimates, since the main burden in presenting the tax consequences is the Ministry of Finance and Public Credit. In Statement C-502 of 2007_[59], the Court examined this matter extensively:

" 35. Certainly, given the current conditions in the Congress of the Republic, to admit that Article 7or Law 819 of 2003 constitutes a requirement for processing, which creates an additional and exclusive burden In practice, the Congress in the formation of the bills means that the Congress will have a considerable capacity 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 presuppose that the congressmen-or the benches-have the knowledge and tools sufficient 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, accepting that the conditions set out in Article 7or Law 819 of 2003 constitute a procedural requirement that it is incumbent upon you to comply only and exclusively to the Congress disproportionately reduces the capacity of legislative initiative that resides in the Congress of the Republic, with which the principle of separation of the Ramas of the Public Power is violated, in so far as the autonomy of the Legislative Assembly 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 granting 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 the judgment C-874 of 2005-it was reviewed-and the president of the Republic objected to the plan as soon as the Ministry of Finance had not conceptualized about 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 7or of Law 819 of 2003 should be understood as parameters of rationality of the legislative activity and as a burden to it. initially to the Ministry of Finance, 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.

" That is, 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 project 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, falls on the Minister of Finance.

" 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 failure to take into account the conditions set out in Article 7or 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 ".

In C-315 2008 statement,_[60] this Corporation synthesized the rules applicable to the bills as to the content and scope of the tax impact forecast:

" The obligations under Article 7or Law 819/03 constitute a parameter of legislative rationality, which is aimed at fulfilling constitutionally valuable purposes, between they are the order of public finances, 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 fulfillment initially corresponds to the Ministry of Finance and Public Credit, once the Congress has valued, through the tools it has the compatibility between the expenditure generated by the legislative initiative and the projections of the economic policy drawn up 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 7or 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 validity of the constitutional of the respective procedure ".

In this same sense, in Judgment C-1197 of 2008,_[61] 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 Congress are called to comply with the requirement of Article 7or Law 819 of 2003, in the form set out in the case-law, and the former must act on the basis of the proposal made by the Legislative Chambers. But in order to fulfill the requirement laid down in Article 7or 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 technical studies, which consists of the incongruity that the bill adduces with "the fiscal perspectives that the Nation has set for the next four years."

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 mentioned in the article 151 Higher ".

More recently, in Judgment C-662 , 2009,_[62] the Court noted the following:

" 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.

" 3.9.2.3. If this mandate is considered as a mechanism of legislative rationality, its fulfillment initially corresponds to the Ministry of Finance and Public Credit, once the Congress has valued, through the tools it has at its disposal, the compatibility between the expenditure generated by the legislative initiative and the projections of the economic policy drawn up 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.

(...)

" 3.9.5. In this order of ideas, the Court concludes that, for the case of the proposed law, there is no evidence of an unconstitutionality caused by the violation of the organic regulations of the budget. Note that the Congress, based on the tools it had at its disposal, established a method of financing to address the tax impact of the measure. In this instance, it corresponded to the Ministry of Finance and Public Credit, in accordance with the duty imposed by the third paragraph of Article 7or Law 819/03, to present a concept in which it would have indicated that the The financing formula proposed by the legislature was opposed to the Medium-Term Fiscal Framework or did not provide for the necessary sources of financing. On the contrary, in his intervention, he kept silent on the matter, omission that, according to the jurisprudential position of this Corporation, cannot give rise to the affectation of the constitutionality of the procedure.

" It should be emphasized that if the Government considered that the mode of financing provided by the Chambers did not meet the requirements and conditions of its economic policy, it was obliged to indicate, through the provided for in Article 7or Law 819/03, the observations of the case. Thus, it is not acceptable to accept that the omission in the use of this instrument could serve as a basis for the configuration of a vice of constitutionality of the initiative. This is under the understanding that the compatibility between the bills and the economic policy is a matter in which Congress and the government are present, without the government having a veto over the legislative capacity to produce the laws.

"Based on the above arguments, the Court will dismiss the presidential objection based on the pretermission of the organic budget normativity."

4.3. In the matter under examination, the draft law objected to the memory of Luis Carlos Galan Sarmiento, a change in the name of the Bogota International Airport, replacing the name of El Dorado with Luis Carlos Galan. Sarmiento. According to the Government, such modification implies an imperative order from the Executive for the inclusion of the necessary budget items, which does not know the constitutional and organic rules that regulate the principle of the legality of the expenditure. According to the Congress, the change of name of El Dorado Airport is not specifically ordering an order for the inclusion of a specific budget item, because at most it contains an implicit authorization for the government to decide to include the funds. budget items that you deem necessary.

during the process of the bill in Congress, both in the explanatory statement and in the presentation for the first debate, the Congressmen concluded, with the tools at their disposal, that the bill did not have any implications. _[63] The National Government did not intervene during the procedure itself to discuss this conclusion, nor to show technically what the impact of the project was on fiscal spending, as indicated in Law 819 of 2003. Even in the presidential objection document, it is precisely what this tax impact is and beyond general statements it is not clear why the change of name of the airport in the navigation charts, in the aeronautical information and in the other instruments have the fiscal impact questioned by the government.

The Court observes that in the contested draft, nothing has to be allowed to assimilate its statements to an order with an imperative character and in accordance with which it is intended to deprive the National Government of the power to decide whether or not to incorporate the authorised expenditure within the budget. Contrary to what the National Government says, in the terms used by the legislator no such order is observed regarding public spending, but rather the respect of the competence that corresponds to the government, which is recognized as the possibility of to consider the incorporation of budget items and to do so in accordance with the resources available and with the guidelines of the medium-term fiscal framework. For this reason, no reason for unconstitutionality is the result of the invalidation of the project.

Nor does such authorization not be known for the requirement that the tax costs generated by each of the laws approved by the Congress of the Republic, established in Article 7or Law 819 of 2003, be known, As it is a tool for legislative rationality, it creates an initial burden on the Executive that the latter did not comply with in the present case, but that it cannot constitute an insurmountable barrier to the exercise of the function Autonomous legislative by the Congress of the Republic.

In view of the above, the objection to this is unfounded.

VII. DECISION

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

RESOLVES:

First. Declare Unfounded the unconstitutionality objections raised by the National Government in relation to the Bill 253 of 2009 Senate, 374 of 2009 Chamber, for which Law 75 of 1989 is amended, "for which Nation honors the memory of Dr. Luis Carlos Galan Sarmiento."

Second. Declare Exequable, only in relation to the objections analyzed, the Bill number 253 of 2009 Senate, 374 of 2009 Chamber, "for which the Law 75 of 1989 is amended," for which Nation honors honors to the memory of Dr. Luis Carlos Galan Sarmiento. "

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

The President,

Mauricio Gonzalez Cuervo.

The Magistrates,

Maria Victoria Calle Correa, Juan Carlos Henao Perez, Gabriel Eduardo Mendoza Martelo, Ausente en Comício; Jorge Ivan Palacio Palacio, Nilson Pinilla Pinilla, Jorge Ignacio Pretelt Chaljub, Vow Salvamento; Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto, Luis Ernesto Vargas Silva.

The General Secretariat,

Martha Victoria Sachica Mendez.

* * *