LAW 1412

(October 19)

Official Journal No. 47.867 of 19 October 2010

CONGRESS OF THE REPUBLIC

By means of which the realization is authorized free of charge and promotes the ligation of deferential ducts or vasectomy and the ligation of fallopian tubes as forms to promote parenthood and maternity responsible.

COLOMBIA CONGRESS

DECRETA:

TITLE I.

GENERAL PROVISIONS.

ARTICLE 1o. RESPONSIBLE PARENTING AND MOTHERHOOD ARE A RIGHT AND A CITIZEN ' S DUTY. Couples have the right to decide freely and responsibly the number of children to make up the family. The progenitor responsible is considered a positive attitude towards society, and as such it will be recognized, facilitated and stimulated by the authorities.

TITLE II.

SURGICAL CONTRACEPTION.

ARTICLE 2o. GRITY. The State guarantees the practice of vasectomy or tubal ligation free of charge.

ARTICLE 3o. FINANCING AND COVERAGE. The social security system in health, will be responsible for these surgical practices (vasectomy and tubal ligation) to be covered free of charge, to all sectors of the population that so request.

Public or private PSUR that address the population that is not affiliated with any of the two existing (linked) health regimes, will make the recovery to the prevention and promotion sub-account of FOSYGA

ARTICLE 4. WRITTEN REQUEST. People who want to perform such surgical practices must apply in writing to the respective entity.

ARTICLE 5o. INFORMED AND QUALIFIED CONSENT. The physicians responsible for performing the respective operation must inform the patient of the nature, implications, benefits and health effects of the practice, as well as the alternatives of use of other non-surgical contraceptive methods.

When people have literacy limitations, the EPS, the contributory or subsidized regime to the PSUR. Public or private, according to the medical practice, they will have to offer the patient alternative means to express their will for both the written request as for informed consent.

ARTICLE 6o. MENTALLY DISABLED. In the case of mentally handicapped persons, the application and consent shall be signed by the respective legal representative, subject to prior judicial authorization.

ARTICLE 7o. BAN. In no case is the practice of surgical contraception to minors allowed.

ARTICLE 8o. PATIENT RECOVERY. People who undergo these surgical practices will be entitled to work incapacity, in the terms and conditions provided by the treating physician, ensuring recovery in the health of the patient. patient.

ARTICLE 9o. REGISTER. The departmental, district and municipal health secretaries shall keep records of all operations carried out in the development of the surgical practices authorized by this law, which in turn will refer to the Ministry of Health Social protection who will keep a national register.

ARTICLE 10. DISCLOSURE. The departmental, district and municipal health secretaries and the Ministry of Social Protection will be responsible for disseminating among the population through educational campaigns, the benefits, implications and effects of the surgical contraception, as well as other methods of non-surgical contraception.

TITLE III.

DEFINITIONS.

ARTICLE 11. SURGICAL CONTRACEPTION. The -surgical procedure is understood by surgical contraception to avoid conception through vasectomy or tubal ligation.

ARTICLE 12. TUBAL LIGATION. It is the operation consisting of the ligation of the fallopian tubes, which are cut and sealed to prevent the sperm from reaching the egg.

ARTICLE 13. VASECTOMY. It is the operation directed to cut and bind the vessels or deferential ducts to obstruct the circuit and normal passage of the sperm.

TITLE IV.

FINAL PROVISIONS.

ARTICLE 14. This law shall be constantly disclosed through the members of the State's communication, both by the National Government and by the respective local or local authorities, and will be promoted through the Ministry of Social Protection, the Territorial Health Secretariats and the EPS of the subsidized and contributory regime, so that detailed information on the surgical procedure is provided showing its benefits and characteristics.

ARTICLE 15. This law governs from its enactment.

The President of the honorable Senate of the Republic,

ARMANDO BENEDETTI VILLANEDA.

The Secretary General (e) of the honorable Senate of the Republic,

SAUL CRUZ BONILLA

The President of the honorable House of Representatives,

CARLOS ALBERTO ZULUAGA DIAZ.

The Secretary General of the honorable House of Representatives,

JESUS ALFONSO RODRIGUEZ CAMARGO.

REPUBLIC OF COLOMBIA NATIONAL GOVERNMENT

Publish and comply

In compliance with the provisions of Judgment C-625 of August 10, 2010, proposed by the Constitutional Court, the bill is passed, as the corporation orders the referral of the The President of the Republic of the Republic, to continue the legislative process of rigor and his subsequent submission to the President of the Republic for the effect of the corresponding sanction.

Dada en Bogotá, D. C., 19 October 2010

JUAN MANUEL SANTOS CALDERÓN

The Minister of Finance and Public Credit,

JUAN CARLOS ECHEVERRY GARZON.

The Minister of Social Protection,

MAURICIO SANTAMARIA SALAMANCA.

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

GENERAL SECRETARY

Bogotá, D. C., twenty (20) September two thousand ten (2010)

Trade number CS-296

Doctor

CRISTINA PARDO SCHLESINGER

Legal Secretary

Presidency of the Republic

City

Reference: Expedient OP-128. Judgment C-625/10. Bill number 050 of 2007 Senate, 329 of 2008 Chamber and its Cumulative 100 of 2007 Senate, by means of which the realization is authorized free of charge and promotes the ligation of deferential ducts or vasectomy and Fallopian tube ligation as ways to encourage parenthood and responsible motherhood". Doctor Nilson Pinilla Pinilla.

Estimated Doctor:

Measured, and in accordance with article 16 of Decree 2067 of 1991, I allow you to send you a copy of the statement C-625 of 2010 of ten (10) of August of two thousand ten (2010), proffered within the process of the reference.

Cordially,

MARTHA VICTORIA SACHICA MENDEZ

General Secretariat.

_{Attachment copy of the statement with 24 folios.}

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

-Full Room-

2010 C-625 statement

Ref.: Expedient OP-128.

Presidential Objections for unconstitutionality to Bill No. 50 of 2007 Senate, 329 of 2008 Chamber, " by means of which is promoted the ligation of deferential ducts or vasectomy and the ligation of tubes Fallopian as ways to foster responsible parenthood and motherhood and establish stimuli for citizens.

Judge-Rapporteur: Nilson Pinilla Pinilla.

Bogotá, D. C., ten (10) August two thousand ten (2010).

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

STATEMENT

I. BACKGROUND

By Trade received on 10 December 2009 at the General Secretariat of the Constitutional Court, the President of the Senate of the Republic referred to the Bill of Law number 50 of 2007 Senate, 329 of 2008 Chamber, by means of which promotes the ligation of deferential ducts or vasectomy and the ligation of fallopian tubes as forms to promote responsible parenthood and motherhood and establish stimuli for the citizens, objected by the Executive for reasons of unconstitutionality, being established as Expediente OP-128.

On January 12, 2010, the Attorney General's concept was received in which he asks this corporation to declare unfounded the objections raised by the government and to exequible this bill in relation to the objectionable. Subsequently, by means of providence of the following January 15, the Magistrate Judge arranged to set the matter on the list and ordered the Secretaries-General of the Senate of the Republic and the House of Representatives to refer to the matter. information on the act submitted to the constitutional court.

In order A-006A of January 27 of the current year, and considering that during the corresponding period not received the totality of the information necessary to resolve in front of a case of this nature, the Plena Room of this corporation arranged refrain from deciding on presidential objections to the draft law of the reference and ordered to report on the particular to the Presidents of the Senate and the House of Representatives, as well as to press the respective secretaries-general to send the missing information to the office of the Chief Magistrate.

After the notification of that last providence, the requested information was received from the general secretaries of the legislative chambers, thus meeting all the necessary elements to decide on the objections raised. by the National Government.

Fulfilled the corresponding procedure and seen the concept that the Attorney General of the Nation presented on the subject, the Court then proceeded to rule on the above objections.

II. BILL TEXT

The text of the bill objected by the government is then transcribed:

" LAW ...

by means of which the ligation of deferential ducts or vasectomy and the ligation of fallopian tubes are promoted as forms to promote responsible parenthood and motherhood and establish stimuli for the citizens.

" The Congress of Colombia

DECRETA:

TITLE I

GENERAL PROVISIONS

Article 1or Responsible parenting and motherhood are a citizen's right and duty. Couples have the right to decide freely and responsibly how many children the family will make up. The progenitor responsible is considered a positive attitude towards society, and as such it will be recognized, facilitated and stimulated by the authorities.

TITLE II

SURGICAL CONTRACEPTION

Article 2o. Gratuitousness. The State guarantees the practice of vasectomy or tubal ligation free of charge.

Article 3or Financing and Cuisine. The Social Security System in Health, will be responsible for these surgical practices (vasectomy and tubal ligation) to be covered free of charge, to all sectors of the population that so request.

Public or private PSUR that address the population that is not affiliated with any of the two existing (linked) health regimes, will make the recovery to the prevention and promotion sub-account of FOSYGA.

Article 4o. Written request. Persons who wish to carry out such surgical practices must apply to the respective entity in writing.

Article 5o. From informed and qualified consent. The physicians responsible for carrying out the respective operation must inform the patient about the nature, implications, benefits and health effects of the practice, as well as the alternatives for the use of other contraceptive methods. not surgical.

When people have literacy limitations, the EPS of the contributory or subsidized scheme to public or private PSUR, according to medical practice, will have to offer the patient alternative means to express their will both for the written request and for informed consent.

Article 6o. Mentally disabled. In the case of mentally handicapped persons, the application and consent shall be entered into by the respective legal representative after prior judicial authorization

Article 7o. Prohibition. In no case is the practice of surgical contraception allowed to minors.

Article 8o. Recovery of the patient. Persons who undergo these surgical practices shall be entitled to receive incapacity for work, in the terms and conditions laid down by the treating physician, ensuring recovery in the patient's health.

Article 9o. Registration. Departmental, district and municipal health secretaries shall keep records of all operations carried out in the development of the surgical practices authorized by this law, which shall in turn refer to the Ministry of Social Protection. who will carry a national register.

Article 10. Disclosure. The departmental, district and municipal health secretaries and the Ministry of Social Protection will be responsible for disseminating among the population through educational campaigns, the benefits of the surgical contraception established in this area. law.

TITLE III

DEFINITIONS

Article 11. Surgical contraception. Surgical contraception is understood to be the medical-surgical procedure tending to avoid conception through vasectomy or tubal ligation.

Article 12. Tubal ligation. It is the operation to bind the fallopian tubes, which are cut and sealed to prevent the sperm from reaching the egg.

Article 13. Vasectomy. It is the operation aimed at cutting the vessels or the deferential ducts to obstruct the circuit and normal passage of the sperm.

TITLE IV

FINAL PROVISIONS

Article 14. This law will be constantly disclosed through the State media, both by the National Government and by the respective local or local authorities and will be promoted through the Ministry of Protection. Social, Territorial Health Secretariats and the EPS of the subsidized and contributory regime, so that detailed information about the surgical procedure is provided showing its benefits and characteristics.

Article 15. This law governs from its promulgation. "

III. NATIONAL GOVERNMENT OBJECTIONS

this case, the National Government makes a single objection related to the fact that the gratuitousness of the surgical contraception services that this bill proposes to establish would be contrary to the Fiscal Framework of the The term in which it deals with the Organic Law 819 of 2003, and that to this extent it is also unconstitutional, for infringement of the provisions of article 151 of the Political Constitution.

The then President of the Republic reported that, according to the calculations of the Ministry of Finance and Public Credit, the expenditure that this project is ordered would generate costs close to the $400 billion pesos at constant prices in 2008, the situation that does not give notice to the Fiscal Framework of the Medium Term in force, and that the Ministry informed the legislative chambers in communication sent on 30 March 2009.

To substantiate its objection, the Executive Branch mentions and transcribes excerpts from some of the statements made by this corporation on the nature of the Medium-Term Fiscal Framework and its implications for the constitutionality of the bills. because of its alleged incompatibility with the latter.

IV. INSISTENCE OF THE CONGRESS OF THE REPUBLIC

The chambers insisted on the sanction of the bill adopted by them, based on two main considerations: on the one hand, they reviewed the scope of the case law of this Court in relation to the requirement of compatibility with the The Medium-Term Fiscal Framework, which in its concept would not have the implication that the National Government intends; from another, pointed out that "is not possible to oppose economic reasons for avoiding state obligations in relation to the social rights that enshrines our Constitution ".

Regarding the former, they indicated that this corporation has indicated that the necessary conformity of a bill with the Fiscal Framework of the Medium Term should be understood as " a parameter of rationality of the activity ", whose eventual absence is not sufficient to vitiate the constitutionality of the respective project. Citing Judgment C-502 of 2007, they highlighted that it is up to the Ministry of Finance and Public Credit to illustrate to the members of the legislative chambers on the tax effect of the normative initiatives that they study, and if necessary, convince them that in reason of their incompatibility with this criterion, the respective bill should not be approved.

In relation to the second consideration they referred to the importance of sexual and reproductive rights, highlighting that they have been recognized in various international human rights treaties, among them in the Declaration. Universal Human Rights of 1948, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1976 and the documents of the International Conference on Population and Development accomplished in the city of Cairo in 1994. Likewise, they indicated that the existence and implementation of public policies in relation to the issue is important. They noted that the Ministry of Social Protection has adopted a national sexual and reproductive health policy since 2003, one of whose goals is to increase the correct use of contraceptive methods, especially those in which the Since this time the National Government has proposed sources of funding for the attention of these types of initiatives.

V. INTERVENTION BY THE COLOMBIAN COMMISSION OF JURISTS

During the term of the list, the Director and two other professionals linked to the Colombian Jurists Commission intervened within the present procedure, formulating some considerations from which they requested the Court to declare presidential objections unfounded.

in the first term, the interveners present a summary of the arguments from which the National Government objects to this bill, for allegedly being in violation of the provisions of the article 7or Organic Law 819 of 2003. They state that, according to this support, the Executive considers that their favorable opinion regarding the existing conformity between a certain bill and the corresponding medium-term fiscal framework sets up a a requirement for legislative procedure, and therefore an opposite concept would have the scope of a veto power, capable of preventing the approval of the respective project at the will of the legislative chambers.

They then carry out an analysis of the content of the article 7or in the light of the case law of this corporation, of which they cite several excerpts. They stress that the government's intervention as provided for in this rule should seek to bring the members of the Congress to the conviction that the project in question should not be approved, but that the failure of this persuasive effort should not can have negative consequences on the exequability of the future law. They point out that the understanding that the National Government has on this matter does not know the autonomy of the legislative body in budgetary matters, and it would even be detrimental to the principle of separation of powers, essential within the system. Colombian constitutional.

Later on, they refer to how the objecting project seeks to be an instrument to guarantee the sexual and reproductive rights of the Colombian population within the framework of the Social State of Law, rights that international doctrine, with support in the deliberations and documents of the Cairo Conference of 1994, has defined as "an inalienable, integral and indivisible part of universal human rights". They consider that this law would be a new manifestation of the commitment that the Colombian State has shown in recent years, through the adoption of measures aimed at ensuring its full effectiveness.

In this line, and in particular, they highlight the pronouncements of the Constitutional Court that, from various perspectives, have protected the sexual and reproductive rights of men and women equally, and including, among other manifestations, full control of reproductive capacity, and as part of it, the possibility of deciding the number of children to be had, as well as the time of life in which it is preferred to have them_[1]. They particularly highlight that existing international documents and instruments that seek to prevent discrimination against women have underlined the importance and promoted the use of mechanisms involving men in decision-making. on family planning, since the fact that this responsibility falls exclusively on women, as has been traditional in many countries of the world (among them in Colombia), translates into a form of discrimination against women. those.

As of the above, it notes that the presidential objections raised in this case and their eventual prosperity would have the effect of preventing the development of social and reproductive rights, as well as the restriction of the autonomy of the The Court of Justice, for which the Court of Justice has ruled that the Court of Justice is not

VI. CONCEPT OF THE NATION ' S ATTORNEY GENERAL

The Attorney General of the Nation in Concept number 4882 brought to the Court the following considerations regarding the objections raised by the President of the Republic.

Initially, the Chief of the Public Ministry transcribes the text of this bill and carries out a recount of the completed procedure with respect to the objections raised and the insistence of the Congress on the passage of the approved law, which includes on the submission of the draft for the presidential sanction, its timely objection by the Government, the submission of the corresponding report by the commission appointed for the study of objections, and the subsequent approval of that report by the plenary of both houses. As a result of this analysis, the Attorney General considers that the proceedings concerning the presentation of the objections and the insistence on the part of the Congress have been duly complied with. for this corporation to be able to give its opinion.

In addressing the reasons from which the National Government objected to the constitutionality of the project, the Attorney General cites the jurisprudence of this corporation with respect to the scope of article 7or of Law 819 of 2003, specifically regarding the eventual disagreement of the Executive with the approval of a project involving public expenditure. He pointed out that according to the recent and consolidated position of the_[2] the mechanism provided for in that law " constitutes a parameter of legislative rationality, aimed at the order of public finances, stability and stability. However, final discrepancy between the government is not a reason to compromise the constitutionality of the bill.

Later, it refers to the elements and premises from which the government estimated at almost $400 billion the economic impact of the approval of the objecting standard, pointing out that this figure results from considering that all adults in Reproductive age not affiliated to a social security system will request the practice of these procedures from public resources. It points out that this approach ignores other available statistical elements according to which only a small percentage of that population would be interested in them. From this reflection, he warns that the lower magnitude of the estimated financial cost, which could be less than 1% of what the government has calculated, is an additional reason to declare his objections unfounded.

Concluded this analysis, the Attorney General asks the Court to consider as part of the foundation of this decision, and to issue a specific statement on other issues related to the future implementation of this law, such as the the conditions under which the free and informed consent of the persons to whom the surgical methods used must be issued, as well as the absolute lack of incentives to encourage persons to use these methods planning.

Based on these considerations, the Attorney General concludes by asking this corporation to declare unfounded the objections submitted by the National Government, and to exequble the respective bill.

VII. CONSTITUTIONAL COURT CONSIDERATIONS

First. Competence

The Constitutional Court is competent to decide definitively on the objections raised by the National Government, as provided for in Articles 167 and 241-8 of the Political Constitution.

Second. Legal problem

In the present case, it is for the Court to define, as the only reason for the objections raised by the National Government, whether in the process of this project the Congress broke the mandate of article 7or of the Law 819 of 2003, which compels it to carry out the analysis of fiscal impact of initiatives on public expenditure, in accordance with the Fiscal Framework of the Medium Term.

Third. Verification of the processing of objections to the bill under review

Previously, to the extent that such measures constitute a requirement for the procedure of this decision, the Court should examine whether the government objection and the insistence of the legislative chambers filled the formalities provided for in the the Political Constitution, the Rules of Congress and the other applicable rules. This is because, as the case-law has indicated, the competence to decide on the exequability of projects objected to by the National Government is not only substantial but also procedural, as it includes verification of the a procedure imparted with respect to the constitutional and legal rules governing it_[3].

In this case, the procedures followed after the approval by the Congress of the Republic of the draft law of the reference, are summarized as follows:

1. By trade of June 26, 2009, received on July 10 of the same year (f. 24 cd. In the correspondence office of the Presidency of the Republic, the Secretary General of the Senate referred the bill to the then President of the Republic, for executive sanction.

2. In writing of 21 July 2009, addressed to the then President of the Congress of the Republic, received the same day in the corresponding office, through a memorial that also subscribes to the Minister of Finance and Public Credit, the President of the Republic returned to Congress, without executive sanction, the aforementioned bill, in objecting to unconstitutional all of his articles (fs. 21 to 23 ib.).

It should be noted that in accordance with article 166 of the Political Constitution, developed by article 198 of Law 5th of 1992, " the government has six days to return with objections any project when it does not consist of more than twenty articles; ten days, when the project contains twenty-one to fifty articles; and until Twenty days when the items are more than fifty ".

Constitutional jurisprudence has pointed out that the days referred to by these provisions are both business and non-calendar_[4]. Following this rule, the Court warns that as the draft law under review has fewer than 20 articles, the term to raise objections was six (6) business days and consequently was due on Tuesday, July 21, 2009. by the Government, since those were presented on the same day.

3. On December 1, 2009, the Senate of the Republic in plenary session_[5] and by majority decision_[6] approved the report submitted by the members of the Accidental Commission (folios 86 to 92 of the test book #6), in which It was recommended to declare unfounded the objections raised by the National Government. In the same sense, the plenary of the House of Representatives_[7] , also by a majority_[8], delivered the same date (folios 27 to 31 of the # 3 test book).

4. The announcement prior to the vote on the report which recommended the rejection of the presidential objections was made in both chambers on the same day, 25 November 2009, as reported and certified by the respective Secretaries-General, certifications that work in portfolio 1 of the # 1 test notebook (for the Senate case)_[9] and in the portfolio 1 of the # 2 test notebook (for the case of the House of Representatives)_[10].

To examine the validity of these notices, the Court must take into account its case law on the scope of the requirement laid down in Article 160 above_[11], which you must observe the following requirements_[12]:

-You must give it the chair of the chamber or the committee, directly or on your own instructions, in a separate session and prior to the one in which the vote of the bill is to be carried out.

-The date of the vote must be true, that is, determined or, at least, determinable.

-The bill or the corresponding decision can only be voted on at the previously announced date or opportunity.

-In the event of no vote on the planned date or opportunity, it will be necessary to have made a new notice with the same characteristics, referring to the date or opportunity in which the vote will finally take place. If there has been notice, even several times, but there is no congruence between the last of these and the effective approval vote, it happens what the case law has called the breaking of the chain of notices.

-There is no sacramental formula or textual phrase to be used in Congress to make the notice, any expression that unequivocally meets the objective of this constitutional precept being valid. For example, the use of the expression "ad", to refer to the project notices that will be "considered" or "discussed" in other sessions, is understood as revealing of the intention to vote such projects and, therefore, to comply with the requirement of constitutional article 160 .

-The context of discussions and discussions can be used as a validation reference, to determine whether an announcement actually was made, whether it included the intention to debate and vote on the announced project and, finally, whether the session for the what was announced the vote is a determinable date.

-The context of which validation criteria can be extracted is not limited to the session in which the announcement was made, but may include other sessions, including those where the vote took place.

4.1. Regarding the announcement made in the plenary of the Senate of the Republic, the Court observes that the latter complied with the requirements mentioned above, so that it complied with its constitutional purpose.

As to the terms of that announcement, as noted in the aforementioned Act 21, the project was mentioned along with all its data identifiers in the second place of a list of only two projects in their own situation (with " If, Mr. President, the next item on the agenda would be as follows: Announcement of bills of [...] to debate and vote at the next plenary session. Projects with objections report:". On the same line and immediately before, the same Secretary reported that: " On the instructions of the Presidency and in accordance with the Act Legislative 01 2003, by Secretariat the projects that will be discussed and approved in the next session will be announced: "

On the other hand, exhausted the agenda of the corresponding session, it was reported that " Being 4:05 p. Mr President, the Presidency is meeting and calling for the sitting on Tuesday 1 December 2009 at 2:00 p. m. ". As already indicated, the vote on this objection report took place at the session on Tuesday 1o, in the same terms as were announced.

It is then observed that the constitutionally required notice was made in sufficiently clear and explicit terms, which in the Court's judgment allowed its addressees (the members of the Senate of the Republic) to learn clearly and The Court of Justice held that the Court of Justice held that the Court of Justice held that the And on the other hand, the subsequent realization of the vote announced at the previously informed date ratifies the non-breaking of the chain of announcements, and with this the full validity of this notice for the effects here relevant.

4.2. As regards the announcement made in the House of Representatives, the Court finds that the Court was also held in the terms required by the constitutional rule and the case law of this corporation, as can be observed in the text of the The minutes of the sitting of 25 November 2009 have already been mentioned.

In effect, during the final part of the session the respective announcement was surfed, which was preceded by the following formula: " The bills are announced for the plenary session of next Tuesday, December 1, or for the Next Plenary Session, in which bills or legislative acts are discussed. " Immediately following, at the beginning of a long list of projects, was expressed: "of objections: Bill number 329 of 2008 House, 050 of 2007 Senate, accumulated with the Bill number 100 of 2007 Senate " (blacktext of the original text). As can be seen then, the aforementioned announcement fully complied with the requirements that were further exposed.

Subsequently, as announced, and as has already been stated in the relevant separate, the approval of the objections report was met during the session on Tuesday 1 December (minutes 222), so the previously announced notice is valid as a notice prior to the conduct of that vote.

5. Finally, the text of the report of objections adopted by the plenary members of both chambers within the sessions already referred to, is observed to be precise in the presentation of the reasons from which the President of the The Republic objected to the unconstitutionality of the project previously dealt with by them, as well as the reasons why the National Congress decides to insist on the sanction of this law, all of which has already been reviewed in the corresponding ones. This is the case. For all this, the Court considers that in this case there was a real insistence of the legislative chambers, according to the understanding that the constitutional case law has had.

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 over 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 substance the objections to the draft law of the reference.

Fourth. Material analysis of presidential objections. On the alleged absence of analysis of the tax impact required by article 7or of Law 819 of 2003. Reiteration of case-law

El Comercio] According to the government, the bill under review presents a procedural vice that affects its constitutionality, because it believes that Congress, despite the warnings that the Ministry of Finance and Public Credit will be making in this regard, will do so. approved in contravention of the Medium-Term Fiscal Framework then in force, which does not know the mandate contained in article 7or Law 819 of 2003, as well as in the article 151 higher, which requires the legislative body to address that requirement.

El Nacional] Congress dismisses the reproach made by the executive branch, considering that the understanding that the National Government has about the scope of the already mentioned requirement of Law 819 of 2003 exceeds established by the case law of this corporation_[13]. He points out that this process is called to constitute a parameter of the rationality of the legislative activity, but that in case of differences between the concept of the government and that of the chambers, this cannot lead to the blocking of the process of legislative approval, nor to the inexequability of the standard thus approved.

It also points out that under the Political Charter the effective realization of the social rights there recognized, including sexual and reproductive rights, cannot be subject to conditions of financial order, as in this case. is intended by the National Government. He adds that, as explained by this corporation, the concepts of the Ministry of Finance must be analyzed in three dimensions, axiological, legal and economic, in such a way that the decisions of spending privilege the satisfaction of the rights and needs of people_[14]. From these considerations, it concludes that the objections of the project cannot be accepted.

In order to resolve the government's questioning and in the face of the legislative insistence, it must be remembered that according to article 7or Law 819 of 2003, in the projects on public spending, the Congress must incorporate the study on the tax cost of the initiative and the source of additional income generated to finance it. This is established by the rule in reference:

" Item 7or. Analysis of the tax impact of the rules. At all times, the tax impact of any bill, ordinance or agreement, which orders expenditure or which 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 will be set before the respective Secretariat of Finance or who will do its own times. "

This Court has analyzed, on numerous occasions during recent years, and in the face of disputes similar to the one here raised, the meaning and scope of the previous provision, as well as the implications that its failure to comply with of the constitutional validity of public spending initiatives_[15]. In all these rulings this corporation has consistently welcomed the doctrine set forth in its 2007 C-502 (M. P. Manuel José Cepeda Espinosa), in which, in order to review the constitutionality of a statutory bill, he made the following proposals, which because of its importance and degree of reiteration are relevant to the Extensive i_aj"> in:

" Article 7or Act 819 of 2003 requires that in any bill, ordinance or agreement that orders expenditures or grants tax benefits be explained what its fiscal impact is and is establish 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 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 7or Law 819 of 2003 constitute an important instrument for streamlining legislative activity, in order for it to be carried out. with knowledge of the tax costs generated by each of the laws passed 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 that article 7or must have a favorable impact on the effective application of the laws, since the approval of the same will only occur after the foreseeable fiscal impact and the possibilities of financing 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. With this, the instruments contained in the article 7or analyzed can contribute to the overcoming of that existing tradition in the country -of such deleterious effects in the Social State of Right-which leads to the adoption of laws without the necessary elements to be incorporated into the design of the necessary elements -administrative, budgetary and technical-to ensure its effective implementation and to monitor the obstacles to their full, timely and full compliance.

Thus, the aforementioned article 7or Law 819 of 2003 stands as an important tool both to streamline the legislative process and to promote enforcement 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 a barrier to the Congress exercising 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, 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 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, 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 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, thereby acquiring 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.

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 ".

Later, in C-315 statement of 2008 (M. P. Jaime Cordoba Triviño), in which a number of presidential objections were also based on the alleged failure to comply with the rule here, the Court summarized the following rules regarding the content and scope of the obligation to Consider the tax impact within the bills:

" 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 economic policy, decreases the margin of uncertainty with respect to the material execution of the legislative forecasts.

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 incompatible with the balance between the 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 Finance 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. "

On the most recent date, and in relation to the observance of the requirement set out in Article 7or Law 819 of 2003, in Judgment C-1197 of 2008 (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 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 provided for in article 7or of Law 819 of 2003, the Government is not enough to inform the Congress of the existence of difficulties of budgetary order, but 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 mentioned in the article 151 higher. "

From these jurisprudential guidelines, the Court passes to analyze the particular circumstances that underpin the government's objection in this case.

Fifth. Specific case

As has been stated, in the present case the presidential objection is based on the fact that the Congress of the Republic would have neglected the observations of the National Government in the sense that, due to the magnitude of the spending that the approval of this project would mean, that it is contrary to the Medium Term Fiscal Framework, which implies opposition to the mandate contained in the Organic Law 819 of 2003, and as a consequence, violation of the article 151 constitutional.

However, confronted with the particular circumstances of the case analyzed with the jurisprudential development that the Court has drawn in relation to this requirement, finds this corporation that the objection raised is not called to prosper. This results from the following considerations:

As has been explained in repeated pronouncements that in the previous act there was an opportunity to review, the conformity of the expenditure provided for in a given bill with the Fiscal Framework of the Medium Term, and the fulfillment of the other demands contained in article 7or the organic standard in comment, involve shared and simultaneous heads of two of the Public Power, Legislative and Executive Ramas, and not only in the first of them.

As the Court has also emphasized, while it is the responsibility of the members of Congress to consider and take into account the fiscal effort that the project under study may entail for the public purse, it is clear that it is the Executive, and within that the Ministry of Finance and Public Credit, which has the necessary technical elements to correctly assess this impact, and from this, if necessary, demonstrate to the members of the legislative body the financial unfeasibility of the proposal under consideration. Hence, this corporation has pointed out that it is up to the government to push the legislators to the conviction that the proposed project should not be approved, and that in the event that this effort is unsuccessful, this will not be the case. is sufficient reason to be in breach of the above requirement if the chambers finally decide to approve the contested initiative.

In the present case, it is observed that while the project's_[16] explanatory statement does not contain any precise references to the tax cost of this initiative, some comments were made in the subsequent presentations. In particular, an estimate was included of the volume of population that would be interested in using these services, in addition to the warning that, for the case of people not affiliated with any social security system, these services should be be funded with resources from the General System of Participations administered by territorial entities_[17].

For its part, the National Government made several opportunities during the process of the project, written observations that subsequently served as a basis for the presidential objection that is now being decided. The main one of these interventions is the one contained in the office UJ-1027-08 of 16 June 2008, which the Minister of Finance and Public Credit addressed to the then President of the Senate, Dr. Nancy Patricia Gutiérrez Castañeda, before the approval of this project by the plenum of that corporation_[18]. Subsequently, the content of this communication was reiterated in letters addressed to the President of the Seventh Constitutional Committee of the House of Representatives and the President of that legislative corporation, also prior to the approval of this project in such instances_[19].

On the other hand, some reflections on this same point were also included in a communication that the Minister of Social Protection addressed to the Secretary General of the House of Representatives on April 17, 2009, in which he also pondera this initiative in a very positive way_[20].

In these communications, especially in the first mentioned, the then Minister of Finance and Public Credit analyzed the contents of articles 2o and 3o of this project and made some estimates on the cost of the procedures. The invention relates to a surgical device which is intended to promote this law, which were calculated from the volume of the population of reproductive age, which is not affiliated with any social security system. On these bases, the competent ministry concluded that the total fiscal cost of this initiative would be close to $400 billion. Then, it also transcribed the text of article 7or of Law 819 of 2003 concerning the tax impact analysis of the bills and their agreement with the Fiscal Framework of Medium Term, and concluded that as no additional income source has been defined from which to cover this important cost, the project would be contrary to such criteria, so it should be denied by the Congress of the Republic.

Now, despite having been alerted by the previously mentioned communications about the possible cost of the initiative studied, in addition to having studied such aspects during the legislative process, the commissions and plenary sessions of the Legislative chambers decided to approve the bill that is being commented, highlighting the importance of the Colombian State providing facilities for the full exercise of the sexual and reproductive rights of its inhabitants.

In these circumstances, the Court observes that the National Government, despite having formulated general objections to the financial cost of the implementation of this project, did not particularly actively monitor the receipt of the bill. In the light of these observations, the meaning of the above warnings has been limited to reiterating, in the light of every step of the legislative process. So, while it is the case to recognize that the legislative chambers did not make an especially profound analysis of the glosas posed by the executive branch, the latter did not comply with the Congress with the special burden of argument and conviction. which, as explained above, is a matter for him.

The case law of this corporation has pointed out that in the face of this type of events it cannot have prosperity the subsequent objection of the Government which, although it raised observations on the financial viability of a certain project, did not include adequate and sufficient rational elements to persuade the legislators about the validity and importance of such difficulties. In this context, the sole cause of the eventual constitutional transgression, the objection cannot be accepted, since this would imply recognizing this presidential faculty the scope of a veto power in the face of the initiatives. This is the only way to ensure that the European Parliament has the right to take the necessary measures to ensure that the European Union is not in a position to act in the same way. system.

Now, beyond the clarity of these circumstances, there are other reasons that were pointed out both by the Congress in formulating its insistence, and by those who intervened during the term of the list, and even by the Attorney General, who reinforce the conviction of this corporation in the face of the unprosperity of the objection formulated.

On the one hand, considering that surgical sterilization procedures such as vasectomy and tubal ligation are already part of the existing Mandatory Health Plan_[21], it should be noted that the additional financial cost to the Before the approval of this project assumes the social security system will be, according to figures of the government itself_[22], relatively marginal, given that according to that same information, more than 79.3% of the inhabitants of the territory national are members, either from the contributory scheme or from the subsidised scheme.

Secondly, even within the reduced universe of 20.7% of the unaffiliated population, attention should be drawn to the fact that the figures put forward by the National Government were calculated on the assumption that all people in Active reproductive age and without access to social security services will request the realization of one such surgical procedure, ignoring with it clear and evident statistical factors that would act in terms of lower the demand for these services, and therefore would also significantly reduce that demand. financial impact. These two considerations then speak of the fact that the eventual disagreement between this initiative and the Medium-Term Fiscal Framework, which the government would cause its inexilibility, is significantly lower than that estimated.

On the other hand, it should be highlighted, as the legislative chambers did in supporting their insistence, and without this implying an incursion into the analysis of factors of convenience, that the mandates contained in the draft object certainly They point to the materialization of important social rights present in the Political Constitution (article 42 point 8o) and repeatedly relieved by the jurisprudence of this corporation and by the international doctrine and the pronouncements of the advisory bodies of human rights, such as sexual and reproductive rights, and especially the possibility of controlling fertility, deciding freely and responsibly the number of children a person or a couple wishes to have. In addition, the expected positive effect of these measures on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies should not be forgotten, a phenomenon which, as is known, directly affects the provision of social services by the State, and even more so. important, the effective realization of children's rights (article 44 Const.).

These last considerations on the content of the contested law are also relevant for the purposes of determining how strict the analysis of the constitutionality of this Court should be in relation to the possible infringement, in the case of a case This is the case, of the organic standard invoked by the Government in support of its objection. As a financial obstacle, of course, it is of greater relevance to the constitutional importance of the issue originating in the expenditure, and vice versa, it decreases in its implication if it is compared with the possibility of the exercise of rights of higher hierarchy, considered to be decisive for the well-being of the population.

Thus, the importance and the positive social effects that the object project could generate, as well as its predictable impact in terms of greater enjoyment of its fundamental and social rights, both of the people who wish control the number of their descendants, as well as Colombian children in general, the Court finds an additional reason to conclude that the objection raised in this case should not prosper.

Sixth. Final observation

Before deciding, and on the basis of the request made by the Attorney General in the final part of his already-reviewed concept, it is appropriate to warn that the Constitutional Court's jurisdiction over situations such as the one presented here " The President of the Republic is circumscribed to consider the reasons for unconstitutionality by the President of the Republic to support his refusal to sanction the law dealt with by the Congress, without being able to deal with other issues surrounding them or to extend them to them. scope of its pronouncement.

In this sense, it must be remembered that the content of the objections in these cases is similar to that of the demand in the actions of unconstitutionality, as soon as it strictly delimits and without possibilities of enlargement, the jurisdiction of this court in the case of the case. It is also on the basis of this circumstance that this corporation has consistently pointed out that even if the presidential objections have been referred to the entire legal text approved by the Congress, if they are declared as unfounded, the law subsequently sanctioned can be the subject of citizen demand in the face of any other constitutional controversy not analyzed by the Court when deciding on these objections.

Thus, in application of the already indicated limitation of jurisdiction, the Court will refrain from considering the aspects that were referred to by the Public Ministry in relation to this project, and that they exceed the controversy raised in this case. the case by the former President of the Republic and by the legislative body.

Seventh. Conclusion

As a result of the analysis of constitutionality carried out and the comparison between the case brought and the case of the Court of Justice repeatedly held by the Court in the face of such cases, it considers this corporation as the objection raised It is unfounded, because the Executive did not fully comply with the burden of argument and conviction that, as has been determined, it is up to him to deploy in the face of this type of situation.

On the other hand, as additional factors, the Court ruled that the fiscal impact of the legislative initiative that is being sought would be much smaller than the initially estimated tax, which together with the possibility of strengthening the effective exercise of Important rights, such as the sexual and reproductive rights of the Colombian population, allow the validity of such rights to be privileged in the face of the government's objection, which is strictly financial in nature.

For all that said, there is no doubt for this Court that in the passage of the bill under review, Congress did not violate the mandate contained in Article 7or Law 819 of 2003, which is why reject the objection made by the Government in this regard.

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 objections of unconstitutionality formulated by the National Government to the Bill 050/07 Senate -329/08 Camara, by means of which the ligation of deferential ducts is promoted or vasectomy and the ligature of fallopian tubes as ways to encourage responsible parenthood and motherhood and establish stimuli for citizens and consequently, exclusively with respect to such objections, declare Exequible the referred project.

Second. Be compliant with the provisions of article 167 of the Political Constitution.

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

The President,

Mauricio Gonzalez Cuervo.

Magistrates. Maria Victoria Calle Correa, Juan Carlos Henao Perez, Gabriel E. Mendoza Martelo (unsigned), Jorge Ivan Palacio Palacio, Nilson Pinilla Pinilla, Jorge Ignacio Pretelt Chaljub, Humberto A. Sierra Porto, Luis Ernesto Vargas Silva.

The General Secretariat,

Martha Victoria Sachica Mendez.

Seventh. Conclusion

As a result of the analysis of constitutionality carried out and the comparison between the case brought and the case of the Court of Justice repeatedly held by the Court in the face of such cases, it considers this corporation as the objection raised It is unfounded, because the Executive did not fully comply with the burden of argument and conviction that, as has been determined, it is up to him to deploy in the face of this type of situation.

On the other hand, as additional factors, the Court ruled that the fiscal impact of the legislative initiative that is being sought would be much smaller than the initially estimated tax, which together with the possibility of strengthening the effective exercise of Important rights, such as the sexual and reproductive rights of the Colombian population, allow the validity of such rights to be privileged in the face of the government's objection, which is strictly financial in nature.

For all that said, there is no doubt for this Court that in the passage of the bill under review, Congress did not violate the mandate contained in Article 7or Law 819 of 2003, which is why reject the objection made by the Government in this regard.

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 objections of unconstitutionality formulated by the National Government to the Bill 050/07 Senate -329/08 Camara, by means of which the ligation of deferential ducts is promoted or vasectomy and the ligature of fallopian tubes as ways to encourage responsible parenthood and motherhood and establish stimuli for citizens and consequently, exclusively with respect to such objections, declare Exequible the referred project.

Second. Be compliant with the provisions of article 167 of the Political Constitution.

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

The President,

MAURICIO GONZÁLEZ CROW.

Magistrates. Maria Victoria Calle Correa, Juan Carlos Henao Perez, Gabriel E. Mendoza Martelo (unsigned), Jorge Ivan Palacio Palacio, Nilson Pinilla Pinilla, Jorge Ignacio Pretelt Chaljub, Humberto A. Sierra Porto, Luis Ernesto Vargas Silva.

The General Secretariat,

MARTHA VICTORIA SACHICA MENDEZ.

* * *

1 On this subject, the interveners cite the Sentences T-926 of 1999, T-143 of 2005, C-355 of 2006 and T-636 of 2007.

2 The Prosecutor cites the 2009 C-662 Statement (M. P. Luis Ernesto Vargas Silva).

3 1 Cfr. among other 2000 C-923 failures (M. P. José Gregorio Hernández), C-1249 , 2001 (M. P. Marco Gerardo Monroy Cabra), C-070 , 2004 (M. P. Clara Inés Vargas Hernández), C-887, 2007 (M. P. Nilson Pinilla Pinilla.

4 Cfr. among other C-268 and C-380 statements of 1995 (in both M. P. Vladimiro Naranjo Mesa), C-292 of 1996 (M. P. Julio Cesar Ortiz Gutierrez and C-028 , 1997 (M. P. Alejandro Martinez Caballero).

5. I develop it in the Minutes number 22, published in the Gazette 20 of 2 February 2010, minutes which was approved in plenary March 23, 2010 (minutes 30, published in the Gazette) number 189 of May 10, 2010).

6 According to the certification issued by the Secretary General of the Senate on December 2, 2009, this decision was approved with the presence of 58 senators (quorum decision-making), 54 of whom supported the insistence.

7. I develop it in the Minutes number 222, published in Gazette number 03 of Thursday, January 14, 2010, minutes that was approved at the plenary session of April 13, 2010 (minutes number 233, published in the Gazette number 217 of 14May 2010).

8 As noted in the report, the insistence report in this case was approved by 97 votes in favour and 4 against.

9 The development of this meeting is contained in Minutes number 21, published in the Gazette number 10 of Monday, January 18, 2010, which was also approved at the plenary session of March 23, 2010 (Minutes number 30, published in Gazette number 189 of May 10, 2010).

10 The development of this meeting is contained in Minutes number 221, published in the Gazette number 32 of Thursday, February 11, 2010, which was approved at the plenary session on April 27, 2010 (Act number 236, published in Gazette number 268 of May 28, 2010).

11 The last paragraph of article 160 constitutional, introduced by article 8or 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 chair of each chamber or commission in session other than that in which the vote will be held".

12 See on this topic, among many others, the A-311 car of 2006 (M. P. Marco Gerardo Monroy Cabra) and Sentences C-850 , 2009 (M. P. Nilson Pinilla Pinilla) and C-305 from 2010 (M. P. Luis Ernesto Vargas Silva).

13 The objections report cites the 2007 C-502 Statement (M. P. Manuel José Cepeda Espinosa).

14 In this regard also quote the C-336 Statement of 2008 (M. P. Clara Inés Vargas Hernández).

15 See among many others, only for the last two years, the C-315 Sentences of 2008 (M. P. Jaime Cordoba Trivino), C-731 , 2008 (M. P. Manuel José Cepeda), C-1197, 2008 (M. P. Nilson Pinilla Pinilla), C-441 , 2009 (M. P. Juan Carlos Henao Pérez), C-506 , 2009 (M. P. Jorge Ivan Palacio Palacio) C-662 , 2009 (M. P. Luis Ernesto Vargas Silva) and C-373 from 2010 (M. P. Maria Victoria Calle Correa).

16 The draft law objected to by the government is a result of the accumulation of two different bills on the same subject: i) the 050 Senate of 2007, presented by Senator Samuel Arrieta Buelvas on 1 August 2007 and published in The Gazette of Congress 366 of August 3, 2007, and ii) the 100 of 2007, presented by Senator Gabriel Zapata Correa on the 28th of the same month and year, and published in Gazette 418 of August 30, 2007. In neither case, the explanatory statement expressly referred to these aspects.

17 This comment appears coincident in the papers for the first and second debate in the Senate of the Republic, published in the Gacetas 605 of 2007 and 336 of 2008 respectively.

18 As reported by the Secretary General of the Senate, this bill was approved by the plenary of that corporation at its session on June 19, 200.

19 Communications UJ-2045-08 November 18, 2008 and UJ-339-09 March 30, 2009. The project was approved by the Seventh Commission of the House in session on 18 November 2008 and by the plenary of that corporation in session on 17 June 2009.

20 See folios 40 to 43 of the case's main notebook.

21 This circumstance is corroborated in the communication sent by the Minister of Social Protection to the Secretary General of the House of Representatives on 17 April 2009, referred to in footnote 20 above.

22 Alude la Corte to the calculations contained in the communication UJ-1027-08 directed by the Ministry of Finance and Public Credit to the Mrs. President of the Senate on June 18, 2008, which was previously referred to (folio 55 to 58 of the original notebook).