Autor
Palabras clave
Derecho consuetudinario procesal constitucional. Sentencia típica. Sentencia atípica. Sentencia interpretativa. Sentencia manipulativa. Sentencia exhortativa.Sentencia escalonada. Control difuso de constitucionalidad. Efectos inter partes. Efectos erga om
Resumen
La regulación de los efectos de las sentencias constitucionales en el derecho argentino, ha quedado a cargo, básicamente, del derecho consuetudinario procesal constitucional. Por un lado, la Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nación, que se autodefine como Tribunal de garantías constitucionales, ha instrumentado además de las sentencias tradicionales, estimatorias o desestimatorias, sentencias de nuevo cuño, de tipo «interpretativo », «manipulativo» (por adición, sustracción y sustitutivas), exhortativas y escalonadas. Por otro, partiendo del esquema inicial de fallos con efectos inter partes, la misma Corte ha creado jurisprudencialmente la doctrina de la eficacia vinculante de la doctrina constitucional enunciada en sus sentencias, aunque permite apartarse de ella invocando el juez del caso razones valederas y diferentes a las ya evaluadas por la Corte. Por lo demás, los fallos declarativos de inconstitucionalidad tienen efecto retroactivo, pero existen significativas excepciones. En el derecho público provincial, a su turno, hay modalidades muy diversas de efectos erga omnes.
Keywords
Judicial Review. Custom. Typical decision. Interpretative decision. Manipulative decision. Exhortative decision. Progressive decision. Inter partes effects. Erga omnes effects. Constitutional mutations. State constitutional law. Mandatory effects of the d
Abstract
In the Argentinean system, the regulation of the effects of the judicial decisions
regarding constitutional law has been made, fundamentally, by the judicial review
jurisprudence and custom. Firstly, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, which defines itself as Constitutional Court, has adopted beside traditional decisions, that admit or refuse the allegation of unconstitutionality of a law, a new model of decisions, which are denominated «interpretative» or «manipulative» (that add, subtract or substitute the constitutional rule), «exhortative» and «progressive». In addition to that, originally the decisions had only effects inter partes, but the Court itself have created the theory of the mandatory effects of the constitutional interpretation stated in its decisions, even though it allows the possibility that the judge may avoid the application of the rule stated by the Court by giving actual and different reasons from the ones exposed by the Supreme Court. Besides that, the decisions that declare unconstitutional a law have retroactive effects, but there are relevant exceptions. In state level there are diverse examples of decisions with erga omnes effects.
regarding constitutional law has been made, fundamentally, by the judicial review
jurisprudence and custom. Firstly, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, which defines itself as Constitutional Court, has adopted beside traditional decisions, that admit or refuse the allegation of unconstitutionality of a law, a new model of decisions, which are denominated «interpretative» or «manipulative» (that add, subtract or substitute the constitutional rule), «exhortative» and «progressive». In addition to that, originally the decisions had only effects inter partes, but the Court itself have created the theory of the mandatory effects of the constitutional interpretation stated in its decisions, even though it allows the possibility that the judge may avoid the application of the rule stated by the Court by giving actual and different reasons from the ones exposed by the Supreme Court. Besides that, the decisions that declare unconstitutional a law have retroactive effects, but there are relevant exceptions. In state level there are diverse examples of decisions with erga omnes effects.