JurídicoESEN
Constitutional review ruling (C)May 31, 2000Full bench

C-643 de 2000

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

Reporting justice Alvaro Tafur Galvis

✓Claimant Wilter Antonio Gomez Campos Y Otro

✓
Topic · hard data
Mecanismos De Participacion Ciudadana. Fortalecimiento Y Profundización
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.

Norma Legal
  • Defectos de técnica
Participacion Ciudadana
  • Ejercicio del poder público legislativo
  • Presentación de proyectos de ley
  • Deber
Participacion Democratica
  • Principio fundante y fin esencial
Iniciativa Popular
  • Presentación de proyectos de ley
Mecanismos De Participacion Ciudadana
  • Fortalecimiento y profundización
Referendo
  • Iniciativa ciudadana para proyecto de reforma constitucional
Principio De Conservacion Del Derecho
  • Interpretación sistemática de disposiciones
8 topics · 10 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Ley 5/92.

Art. 142.

No 18.

Referendo.

Exequible.

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

What it decided

Holdings on Ley 5/92. Hard data, verified against the operative part — citable.

Art. 142Ley 5/92 «Numeral 18.»UPHELD
1 holding · source: operative part of the ruling
·

Operative part (Resuelve)

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

  1. en nombre del pueblo y por mandato de la Constitución,
  2. R E S U E L V E :
  3. Declarar EXEQUIBLE el numeral 18 del artículo 142 de la Ley 5 de 1992, bajo el supuesto de que no excluye la iniciativa popular para presentar proyectos de reforma constitucional que serán sometidos a referendo y que el mismo Congreso incorpore a la ley.
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.

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.