JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)March 8, 2000

A- de 2000

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

Reporting justice Alfredo Beltrán Sierra

✓Claimant Rosalba Ines Jaramillo Murillo

✓
Topic · hard data
Recurso De Suplica Contra Auto De Rechazo De Demanda. Admite
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.

Cosa Juzgada Material
  • Existencia, inadmisión y rechazo
Omision Legislativa Absoluta Y Relativa
  • Adopción de decisión en sentencia
Demanda De Inconstitucionalidad
  • Admisión cuando incompetencia no surge de simple comparación entre norma acusada y funciones de la Corte Constitucional
4 topics · 4 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Se revocó la decisión de rechazar las demandas presentadas por los ciudadanos de la referencia contra la Ley 547 de 199, en su integridad, por la primera y parcialmente por el segundo y, en su lugar, se dispone la admisión de las mismas.

En consecuencia, ejecutoriado este auto, se ordenó enviar el expediente al despacho del magistrado ponente para que continúe el trámite de este proceso conforme a lo dispuesto por el Decreto 2067 de 1991.

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.

See the operative part (4 points)
  1. Primero. REVOCAR la decision de rechazar las demandas presentadas por los ciudadanos Rosalba Ines Jaramillo Murillo y Orlando Munoz Neira, contra la Ley 547 de 199, en su integridad, por la primera y parcialmente por el
  2. segundo. y, en su lugar, se dispone la ADMISION de las mismas.
  3. Segundo. En consecuencia, ejecutoriado este auto, enviese el expediente al despacho del magistrado ponente, doctor Antonio Barrera Carbonell, para que continue el tramite de este proceso conforme a lo dispuesto por el Decreto 2067 de 1991.
  4. Notifiquese, copiese, e
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 available1
DissentEduardo Cifuentes Muñoz
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.

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.