JurídicoESEN
Tutela ruling (T)October 2, 2000

T-1326 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 Silvio Fernando Caicedo Muñoz Vs.Tribunal Superior De Distrito Judicial De Popayan

✓
Topic · hard data
Debido Proceso. Criterios Jurisprudenciales De Orden Constitucional En Materia De Legitidad E Interes Para Accionar. No Es Posible En Asunto De Tutela Dentro De Una Misma Accion Agenciar Derechos Ajenos Y A La Vez Invocar Los Mismos Como Propios. Negada.
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.

Agencia Oficiosa En Tutela
  • Declaración expresa y prueba sumaria de no poder promover su propia defensa
  • Legitimidad e interés
2 topics · 2 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
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. en nombre del pueblo y por mandato de la Constitución,
  2. R E S U E L V E:
  3. Primero. CONFIRMAR las sentencias de tutela proferidas en el proceso de la referencia por las Salas Jurisdiccionales Disciplinarias del Consejo Seccional de la Judicatura del Cauca y del Consejo Superior de la Judicatura, del 29 de junio y del 3 de agosto de 2000, respectivamente, en las cuales se denegó el amparo del derecho fundamental al debido proceso al señor Silvio Fernando Caicedo Muñoz por considerar improcedente la acción.
  4. Segundo. Por Secretaría líbrese la comunicación prevista en el artículo 36 del Decreto 2591 de 1991.
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.