JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)March 2, 1995

A- de 1995

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

Reporting justice Fabio Morón Díaz

✓Claimant Jaime Cordoba Triviño

✓
Topic · hard data
Rechazo De Demanda De Inconstitucionalidad. Facultad Del Defensor Del Pueblo De Presentar Demanda De Inconst. Calidad De Ciudadano.
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.

Defensor Del Pueblo
  • Facultad de presentar demanda de inconstitucionalidad
Demanda De Inconstitucionalidad
  • Calidad de ciudadano
  • Rechazo
2 topics · 3 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Se rechazó la demanda de la referencia presentada por el Defensor del Pueblo, quien la presentó en su única condición de funcionario público, lo anterior según la Corte, no resulta compatible con el estricto carácter de ciudadano que exige la acción pública de inconstitucionalidad que precisa la no ostentación de otra calidad o condición que bien pueda merecer, detentar o ejercer, de acuerdo lo previsto en los artículos 241 y 242 de la Constitución.

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. R E S U E L V E
  2. Primero. Rechazar la demanda de la referencia presentada por el Señor Defensor del Pueblo por carencia de legitimidad activa en la causa.
  3. Segundo. Contra la presente providencia procede el recurso de suplica para ante la Sala Plena de esta Corporación.
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.

Appears in the rulingN1 · hard data
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.

The document’s networkthe most influential links · node size is how often the Court cites it
constitutional review unification tutela

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