Previous 38 / 221 Next

Por su parte, la omisión legislativa relativa se presenta cuando el legislador incumple una obligación derivada de la Constitución que le impone expedir una norma legal. Este tipo de omisión “está ligado, cuando se configura, a una "obligación de hacer", que supuestamente el Constituyente consagró a cargo del legislador, el cual sin que medie motivo razonable se abstiene de cumplirla, incurriendo con su actitud negativa en una violación a la Carta”.47 En este escenario, sí puede presentarse una demanda de inconstitucionalidad por omisión legislativa relativa contra una norma determinada. Sin embargo, la demanda debe cumplir con unas condiciones concretas: “ (i) que exista una norma sobre la cual se predique necesariamente el cargo; (ii) que la misma excluya de sus consecuencias jurídicas aquellos casos que, por ser asimilables, tenían que estar contenidos en el texto normativo cuestionado, o que el precepto omita incluir un ingrediente o condición que, de acuerdo con la Constitución, resulta esencial para armonizar el texto legal con los mandatos de la Carta; (iii) que la exclusión de los casos o ingredientes carezca de un principio de razón suficiente; (iv) que la falta de justificación y objetividad genere para los casos excluidos de la regulación legal una desigualdad negativa frente a los que se encuentran amparados por las consecuencias de la norma; y (v) que la omisión sea el resultado del incumplimiento de un deber específico impuesto por el constituyente al legislador”.48 Con base en lo anterior, cuando se formula una omisión legislativa relativa, le corresponde al demandante, además de cumplir con los requisitos ordinarios dispuestos en el artículo 2° del Decreto 2067 de 1991, asumir la carga de argumentar de forma suficiente las condiciones transcritas. El juez constitucional deberá analizar si el legislador omitió incluir un elemento, que de acuerdo a los mandatos de la Constitución Política, necesariamente se debía haber tenido en cuenta en el presupuesto normativo para que la norma sea constitucional. 47 Corte Constitucional, sentencias C-444 de 2009 (MP Jorge Ignacio Pretelt Chaljub), C-173 de 2010 (MP Jorge Ignacio Pretelt Chaljub), C-401 de 2016 (MP Jorge Iván Palacio Palacio), C-031 de 2018 (MP Diana Fajardo Rivera) y C-027 de 2020 (MP Alejandro Linares Cantillo). 48 Corte Constitucional, sentencias C-173 de 2010 (MP Jorge Ignacio Pretelt Chaljub) y C-027 de 2020 (MP Alejandro Linares Cantillo). 38

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