Previous 47 / 221 Next

sistema de apoyos que en realidad solo sirve a las discapacidades relativas, pero no a las absolutas. Por ello, señalan que el legislador incurrió en una omisión legislativa relativa al no tener en cuenta los diferentes tipos de discapacidad y sus necesidades al momento de perfeccionar actos jurídicos. Así, la argumentación no explica de forma inequívoca por qué el aparte del artículo 19 de la Ley 1996 de 2019 es el objeto de inconstitucionalidad, cuando existen otras disposiciones que tienen una relación más coherente con su argumentación sobre la presunta ineficacia del sistema de apoyos y las discapacidades absolutas o severas. El cargo no es específico ni cierto, toda vez que el artículo 19 regula todo lo concerniente a los “acuerdos de apoyo como requisito de validez para la realización de actos jurídicos”, es decir, se exigen los apoyos para que los actos jurídicos no sean declarados nulos. Al final del artículo se señala que los apoyos deben tener en cuenta las preferencias de la persona titular del acto jurídico, “así como su derecho a tomar riesgos y a cometer errores”. Este aparte debe ser interpretado junto con el numeral 3° del artículo 4, el cual dispone el principio de “primacía de la voluntad y preferencias de la persona titular del acto jurídico”. Este principio contempla de forma expresa los casos en los que “aun después de haber agotado todos los ajustes razonables disponibles, no sea posible establecer la voluntad y preferencias de la persona de forma inequívoca, se usará el criterio de la mejor interpretación de la voluntad (…)”. De manera que, contrario a lo que afirman los demandantes, el legislador sí contempló medidas para atender los casos más graves de discapacidad y cómo proceder ante las personas que se encuentren imposibilitadas para manifestar su voluntad y preferencias. Esto además se puede corroborar con otras disposiciones de la misma ley que no fueron demandadas en esta ocasión, como por ejemplo los artículos 5, 9, 38, 48 y 56.62 Por lo anterior, la Sala considera que los argumentos relacionados con la presunta inconstitucionalidad de la parte final del artículo 19 no cumplen con los requisitos de especificidad y certeza, pues no evidencian la existencia de una oposición objetiva concreta entre la norma constitucional y la legal, y además, parten de supuestos que no son ciertos. 62 El legislador define aquellos casos más graves cuando “la persona titular del acto jurídico se encuentra absolutamente imposibilitada para manifestar su voluntad y preferencias por cualquier medio, modo y formato de comunicación posible”, en los cuales se deben adjudicar apoyos judicialmente por persona distinta al titular (art. 38 de la Ley 1996 de 2019). 47

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Sentencia C-025/21

Judgment

Question Presented: Whether Article 6 of Law 1996 of 2019, which establishes the presumption of full legal capacity for all persons with disabilities regardless of whether they use supports, is constitutional; whether Article 53 of Law 1996 of 2019, which repealed all provisions related to interdiction and inhabilitation in the Colombian legal system, is constitutional; and whether the shift from a substitute decision-making model (guardianship/interdiction) to a supported decision-making model is consistent with the Colombian Constitution and Colombia's international obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), ratified by Colombia via Act 1346 of 2009.

Alleged Acts: Law 1996 of 2019 was enacted to reform Colombia's legal capacity regime for persons with disabilities. The law eliminated the civil law mechanisms of "interdiction" (interdicción) and "inhabilitation" (inhabilitación) — forms of guardianship that historically stripped persons with disabilities of their legal capacity, including the right to vote, enter contracts, exercise parental authority, and participate in public life. Under the old regime, a judicial declaration of interdiction resulted in the automatic loss of legal capacity and civil rights, including political rights. Law 1996 of 2019 replaced this substitute decision-making model with a supported decision-making framework, establishing a legal presumption of full capacity for all persons with disabilities and creating mechanisms for "support agreements" (acuerdos de apoyos) and judicial adjudication of supports (adjudicación judicial de apoyos). Several citizens filed constitutional challenges (demandas de inconstitucionalidad) against various articles of Law 1996 of 2019, arguing that the elimination of interdiction and the presumption of full legal capacity for persons with disabilities was unconstitutional. The challengers contended that removing the traditional guardianship framework left vulnerable individuals without adequate protection and that the presumption of capacity could expose persons with disabilities to exploitation or harm.

Procedural history: The constitutional challenges were filed with the Colombian Constitutional Court, which has exclusive jurisdiction over abstract constitutional review of legislation. A companion decision, Sentencia C-022/21 (February 4, 2021), addressed a preliminary procedural challenge regarding whether Law 1996 of 2019 should have been enacted as a statutory law (ley estatutaria) requiring special procedural requirements, rather than an ordinary law. The Constitutional Court resolved that procedural issue, allowing the substantive review to proceed in Sentencia C-025/21.

Summary: Sentencia C-025/21 is a landmark Colombian Constitutional Court decision that upheld the constitutionality of Law 1996 of 2019, which abolished the centuries-old interdiction (guardianship) regime and replaced it with a modern supported decision-making framework. The Court ruled that the presumption of full legal capacity for all persons with disabilities is constitutional, that the prior interdiction system violated human rights — including the right to vote — and that even persons with severe intellectual disabilities must be provided with all reasonable accommodations to express their will and preferences. This ruling aligns Colombian law with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) and represents one of the most significant constitutional reforms in Latin America regarding the legal capacity and political rights of persons with disabilities. The decision is particularly significant for disability voting rights because it eliminates the legal framework that automatically disenfranchised persons under guardianship and establishes an affirmative constitutional obligation to provide accommodations to facilitate political participation.

Conclusion: The Constitutional Court declared Articles 6 and 53 of Law 1996 of 2019 constitutional (exequible). The Court inhibited itself from ruling on certain other challenged articles but addressed the core provisions. The Court held that Article 6, establishing the presumption of full legal capacity for all persons with disabilities, is consistent with the Constitution's principles and with the provisions of Act 1346 of 2009 (CRPD). The Court affirmed that persons with disabilities are subjects of rights with full legal capacity on equal terms with others. The Court concluded that the prior interdiction regime violated the human rights of persons with disabilities. The denial of legal capacity prevented persons with disabilities from accessing other fundamental rights, including the right to vote, parental authority, and contractual autonomy. As stated in the Court's reasoning: "La negación de la capacidad jurídica de las personas con discapacidad les impide acceder a otros derechos, como el voto, la patria potestad..." (The denial of legal capacity prevents persons with disabilities from accessing other rights, such as voting, parental authority...). The Court declared Article 53 constitutional, affirming that the repeal of all interdiction and inhabilitation mechanisms was a necessary step to comply with Colombia's constitutional and international human rights obligations. The law expressly ordered the repeal of all mechanisms that substitute the legal capacity of persons with disabilities. The Court established that the presumption of legal capacity has a material effect requiring accommodations. As stated: "El efecto de la presunción del ejercicio de la capacidad legal se materializa en que, aún en un caso en el que la persona tiene una discapacidad intelectual y que se encuentra imposibilitada para manifestar su voluntad, debe garantizarse por todos los medios y los ajustes razonables que requiera, la manifestación de su voluntad y preferencias." (The effect of the presumption of the exercise of legal capacity materializes in that, even in a case where the person has an intellectual disability and is unable to manifest their will, their will and preferences must be guaranteed through all means and reasonable adjustments required.). The Court concluded that the recognition of legal capacity for adult persons with disabilities, provided they are given appropriate support and information, is in accordance with the Constitution's principles and with the provisions of Act 1346 of 2009 (approval of the CRPD). The law aligns Colombian jurisprudence with Article 12 of the CRPD, which requires states to recognize persons with disabilities as persons before the law with equal legal capacity in all aspects of life.

Legal Issue(s)

Accessibility
Voters' Rights

Applicable Law(s): Law 1996 of 2019, Colombia Constitution, Act 1346 of 2019, and the Convention on the Right of Disabled Persons

Region: Americas

Country: Colombia

Language of Decision

Spanish

Court: Constitutional Court

Election Type: General

Date of decision: Feb 4, 2021

Geolocation

Latitude: 4.599

Longitude: -74.0755

: Geolocation

Link: https://www.corteconstitucional.gov.co/relatoria/2021/c-025-21.htm

Primary Documents

C-025-21.pdf
Spanish
Download View

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

Sentencia C-025/21

Primary Documents

Notifications