JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)December 10, 2025

A- de 2025

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

Reporting justice Jorge Enrique Ibáñez Najar

✓Claimant Edier Esteban Manco Pineda.·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
Recurso De Suplica Contra Rechazo Demanda De Inconstitucionalidad
  • Requisitos de procedencia
  • Incumplimiento de la carga argumentativa
2 topics · 3 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 no se subsanaron plenamente las deficiencias advertidas en la inadmisión y porque el escrito de corrección reafirmó la imposibilidad de admitir un juicio de fondo.

Teniendo en cuenta que el actor no presentó argumentos para refutar lo establecido en el auto de rechazo y que no proporcionó argumentos que demostraran la existencia de errores, omisiones o arbitrariedades en que hubiese incurrido el magistrado sustanciador, la Sala Plena de la Corporación decidió RECHAZAR el recuso impetrado en esta oportunidad.

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. RECHAZAR, por falta de carga argumentativa, el recurso de súplica presentado por el ciudadano Edier Esteban Manco Pineda en contra del Auto del 27 de octubre de 2025, a través del cual se rechazó la demanda presentada dentro del expediente D-16.893.
  2. SEGUNDO. Por intermedio de la Secretaría General de la Corte Constitucional,
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
✓
Jorge Enrique Ibáñez Najar
Reporting justice
✓
Carlos Camargo Assis
Magistrado
✓
Hector Alfonso Carvajal Londoño
Magistrado
✓
Juan Carlos Cortés González
Magistrado
✓
Lina Marcela Escobar Martínez
Magistrado
✓
Miguel Efrain Polo Rosero
Magistrado
✓
Natalia Ángel Cabo
Magistrado
✓
Paola Andrea Meneses Mosquera
Magistrado
✓
Vladimir Fernández Andrade
Magistrado
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.