Rule of the Agreed Order of the Supreme Court for the processing of oath files of lawyers, is challenged for unconstitutionality before the Constitutional Court.

2023-12-18 07:10:04

A Graduate in Legal and Social Sciences requested to declare unconstitutional article 7 of Agreed Order No. 47-2020, of the Supreme Court, which contains the consolidated text of the instructions for the processing of oath files for lawyers.

The rule of the Agreed Order challenged as unconstitutional establishes:

“Article 7. Requirement for information when there is validation. In the event that the applicant has obtained the degree of Bachelor or Bachelor of Legal Sciences granted by one University, validating subjects passed at another, and provided that the document (minutes, certificate, resolution, memorandum, etc.) in which it is recorded approval of the validation appears a possible lack of equivalence of contents between the validated subjects, or the time elapsed between the approval of the subjects and their validation exceeds ten years, the University of graduation will be notified in order to inform about of said situation and that it accompanies, as appropriate, the following documents:

-Study plan of the University of origin, legalized;

-Programs of the subjects approved at the University of origin, duly formalized;

-Programs of the subjects that are considered validated in the Law degree of the validating University, duly made official;

-Background that certifies the significant work experience of the applicant and the record that records the completion of relevant knowledge exams.”

It is up to the Constitutional Court to resolve issues of constitutionality of the agreed orders issued by the Supreme Court, the Courts of Appeals and the Election Qualifying Court, a challenge that can be heard by the Constitutional Judiciary at the request of the President of the Republic, of any of the Chambers or ten of its members, and also of any person who is a party to a trial or action pending before an ordinary or special court, or from the first action of the criminal procedure, when they are affected in the exercise of their fundamental rights for what provided in the respective agreed order.

The pending procedure on which the unconstitutionality requirement affects is a procedure for the certification of lawyers initiated by the requester before the Plenary Session of the Supreme Court, in which the qualification of the challenger from whom higher qualifications are requested is not carried out. background referring to the process of validation of subjects that he passed at another university other than the degree university, which is why he filed an appeal for reconsideration that is currently pending in the People Committee.

The applicant alleges that the rule of the Agreed Order violates mental integrity, equality before the law, freedom of work and protection, the right to develop economic and professional activities and the principles of legality and legal security, since, despite Having complied with all the requirements provided for in articles 523 and 526 of the Organic Code of Courts and having accompanied the aforementioned certificate on two occasions, the oath has been postponed in exchange for the presentation of more academic documents that the law does not require.

The above, since the National Congress has not given the character of law to said agreed order, is still an internal provision of the Supreme Court, whose object and purpose was to improve the administrative procedures for the certification of lawyers, but in no case hinder applicants from their right to obtain a degree in accordance with the procedural laws established well in advance in the cited articles of the COT.

He alleges that great frustration, annoyance, anguish, and damage to his and his family’s health have been caused, as he has worn himself out both morally and materially in the procedures, since the University, in accordance with the principle of autonomy, has already He had validated his studies, passed and graduated with a Bachelor’s Degree in Legal and Social Sciences and, on the other hand, the document had already been accompanied, which would lead one to think that the administrative staff had lost their certificate.

The First Chamber designated by the President of the Constitutional Court must decide whether the request meets the requirements to admit it for processing: clear presentation of the facts and legal bases; It does point out precisely the unconstitutionality defects that the rule of the agreed order suffers from; how these affect the exercise of the fundamental rights of the applicant in the pending management, among others. If the challenge does not meet the requirements, it will not be accepted for processing and will be considered not presented for all legal purposes, and a well-founded resolution will be issued. If it suffers from defects in form or the omission of background information that should be attached, the Court will grant the applicant a period of 3 days to correct or complement them, and if it does not do so, it will be considered not presented for all legal purposes.

If the Chamber admits it for processing, it must then rule on its admissibility. The inadmissibility will be pronounced by a well-founded resolution, when it has not been presented by a legitimate person or body; when it is promoted with respect to an agreed order or provision that has already been previously declared constitutional, provided that the same defect that is the subject of said ruling is invoked; when there is no pending criminal procedure, trial or process, in cases in which it is promoted by a constitutionally legitimate party or person, and if it does not indicate the way in which the agreed order affects the exercise of the constitutional rights of the requester.

If it is declared admissible, it will then be up to the Full Court to issue a ruling on the merits of the matter. The ruling that declares the unconstitutionality of all or part of an agreed order must be published in the Official Gazette, at which time the agreed order, or the part of it that has been declared unconstitutional, will be deemed repealed, without this producing retroactive effect.

See text of the requirement and file Role No.14.998–2023.