JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)September 18, 2025

A- de 2025

The official text of this ruling is in Spanish and is shown as published by the Colombian authorities.

Reporting justice Juan Carlos Cortés González

✓Claimant Bustillo Martínez Juan Sebastián Ricardo·Respondent --

✓
Topic · hard data
Sin Información
01

Topics and subtopics of the ruling

✓What the ruling decides and analyzes, as indexed by the Court's case-law reporter's office. Each topic links to every decision that addresses it.

Recurso De Suplica Contra Auto Que Rechaza Demanda
  • Demandante debe efectuar razonamiento mínimo para constatar yerro o arbitrariedad
2 topics · 2 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Recurso de súplica.

La demanda se rechazó porque persistió la falta de certeza de la acusación.

La Sala Plena de la Corporación concluyó que las razones expuestas por el actor no evidenciaron un yerro, olvido o arbitrariedad de la providencia censurada y, por ello, decidió NEGAR el recurso impetrado.

Case-law reporter's text · normalized for reading (all caps → sentence case)
02

What it decided

This decision records no constitutional review holdings. This is common in tutela rulings and orders, where the decision does not concern a legal provision.
·

Operative part (Resuelve)

✓Verbatim text of the decision, as it appears in the ruling. It complements the structured holdings above.

  1. PRIMERO. NEGAR el recurso de súplica presentado por Juan Sebastián Bustillo Martínez contra el Auto del 30 de julio de 2025, mediante el cual se rechazó la demanda de inconstitucionalidad formulada en contra del artículo 17 (parcial) de la Ley 20 de 1908 dentro del expediente D-16621.
  2. SEGUNDO. A través de la Secretaría General de la Corte Constitucional, COMUNICAR esta decisión al recurrente, indicándole que contra la misma no procede recurso alguno.
  3. TERCERO. Ejecutoriada esta decisión, archívese el expediente.
Verbatim text · source: operative part of the ruling
03

The bench that decided

We distinguish who appears in the ruling (signature, vote or concurrence) from who probably sat on the Court on that date. The difference is shown by color and shape.

04

How it connects

Each decision is a node in the case-law network: it cites some and is cited by others. Follow the threads.

Cites0
It cites no recorded decisions.
Cited by0
No decision cites it yet.

The indexed topics and subtopics of this decision are above, in Topics and subtopics of the ruling.