JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)January 18, 2017

A- de 2017

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

Reporting justice Alberto Rojas Ríos

✓Claimant Hernando Salazar Salazar

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.

1 topic · 1 subtopic · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Recurso de súplica interpuesto en contra del auto que rechazó la demanda de inconstitucionalidad de la referencia.

La Sala Plena de la Corporación verifica que el recurso formulado: 1º.

Reitera las mismas razones en las que se fundamentó la demanda. 2º.

No señala por qué la Corte Constitucional es competente para resolver sus pretensiones y, 3º.

Tampoco expone argumentos claros, ciertos, específicos, pertinentes y suficientes contra el auto de rechazo.

Con base en las anteriores consideraciones se CONFIRMA la decisión recurrida.

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. CONFIRMAR el Auto del veintitres (23) de noviembre de dos mil dieciseis (2016), mediante el cual se rechazo la demanda de inconstitucionalidad formulada por el ciudadano Hernando Salazar Salazar contra "el plebiscito para la refrendacion del acuerdo final para la terminacion del conflicto y la construccion de una paz estable y duradera", radicada bajo la referencia D-11772.
  2. SEGUNDO. COMUNIQUESE la presente providencia al actor, informandole que contra esta decision no procede recurso alguno.
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.

Separate opinions — text available2
DissentLuis Ernesto Vargas SilvaDissentAlberto Rojas Ríos
Official text from the case-law reporter · the most valuable part of the ruling: the positions that did not carry the majority.
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.