Previous 36 / 221 Next

razones por las cuales las disposiciones normativas demandadas violan la Constitución, las cuales deberán ser, al menos, “claras, ciertas, específicas, pertinentes y suficientes”.39 Dichas características, que debe reunir el concepto de violación, formulado por quien demanda la norma, fueron definidas por la Corte. En cuanto al requisito de la claridad, indicó esta Corporación, que el mismo se refiere a la existencia de un hilo conductor en la argumentación, que permita al lector la comprensión del contenido en su demanda.40 La condición de certeza, por su lado, exige al actor presentar cargos contra una proposición jurídica real, existente y que tenga conexión con el texto de la norma acusada, y no una simple deducción del demandante.41 La exigencia de especificidad hace alusión a que el demandante debe formular, al menos, un cargo constitucional concreto y directamente relacionado con las disposiciones que se acusan, pues exponer motivos vagos o indeterminados impediría un juicio de constitucionalidad.42 En cuanto a la pertinencia, la Corte ha establecido que la misma se relaciona con la existencia de reproches basados en la confrontación 39 Corte Constitucional, Sentencia C-1052 de 2001 (MP Manuel José Cepeda Espinosa). Al respecto, ver el apartado (3.4.2) de las consideraciones de la sentencia. 40 Corte Constitucional, Sentencia C-382 de 2012 (MP Gabriel Eduardo Mendoza Martelo), en la cual la Corte puntualizó que no se cumple con el requisito de claridad al no explicarse por qué el precepto acusado infringe la norma superior, y Sentencia C- 227 de 2015 (MP Jorge Ignacio Pretelt Chaljub), providencia en la cual se explicó que se presenta falta de claridad al existir en la demanda consideraciones que pueden ser contradictoras. 41 Corte Constitucional, Sentencia C-913 de 2004 (MP Manuel José Cepeda Espinosa), en la que se aclaró que no se observó el requisito de certeza, por cuanto la demanda no recae sobre una proposición jurídica real y existente, sino en una deducida por quien plantea la demanda, o que está contenida en una norma jurídica que no fue demandada; sentencia C-1154 de 2005, (MP Manuel José Cepeda Espinosa), en la cual se señala que se presenta falta de certeza cuando el cargo no se predica del texto acusado; y Sentencia C-619 de 2015 (MP Gloria Stella Ortiz Delgado), en la que se indica que la demanda carece de tal requisito al fundarse en una proposición normativa que no está contenida en la expresión demandada. 42 Corte Constitucional, Sentencia C-555 de 2005 (MP Clara Inés Vargas Hernández), en la cual se afirmó que no se cumplió con el requisito de especificidad porque los fundamentos fueron formulados a partir de apreciaciones subjetivas o propias del pensamiento e ideología que el actor tiene sobre el alcance de la manipulación genética y su incidencia en la humanidad y Sentencia C-614 de 2013 (MP Mauricio González Cuervo), en la que se concluyó que no se trataba de razones específicas porque la argumentación se limitó a citar algunas sentencias de la Corte acompañadas de motivos de orden legal y de mera conveniencia. 36

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