Practica de Campo 5
Cargado por
CARLOSPractica de Campo 5
Cargado por
CARLOSCommon questions
Con tecnología de IAThe effectiveness of administrative acts can be challenged through judicial review, specifically via a contentious administrative process. Despite being executed in the real world by the administration, these acts are subject to being examined and potentially overturned by the judiciary based on their legality or procedural correctness . This means that while the administrative acts are presumed legitimate and are operative when issued, there is still a mechanism in place to contest them, ensuring a balance between administrative efficiency and legal oversight .
The practice of autotutela showcases a balance between administrative self-governance and judicial oversight by enabling the government to conduct its functions and resolve conflicts swiftly and internally while maintaining a system of checks that ensure compliance with broader legal standards. While administrative acts carry the presumption of legitimacy and are immediately enforceable, the availability of judicial review serves as an accountability measure, validating the correct exercise of administrative discretion and preserving individuals’ legal protections .
The concept of administrative self-defense (autotutela administrativa) allows the state, in its administrative function, to resolve disputes through its own authority rather than waiting for judicial adjudication. This approach does not equate to judicial judgment because, although it involves administrative procedures that include conflict assessment, the resolutions are established through administrative power rather than judicial rulings . Judicial adjudication is necessary for the direct enforcement of certain declarations, particularly those involving individual rights, where only the judiciary can conclusively determine legal obligations .
The administration's power to modify legal situations through its acts aligns with the need for judicial review by operating under the principle of presumptive legitimacy while recognizing the role of the judiciary as a corrective body that can validate or invalidate those modifications. While administrative acts change legal situations based on governmental discretion and procedural autonomy, they are subsequently open to judicial review, ensuring that such modifications do not infringe upon legal norms or exceed administrative jurisdiction. This dual mechanism preserves administrative efficiency while safeguarding legal rectitude and protecting individual rights .
In the administrative context, a decision being declared 'INFUNDADO' implies that an appeal or challenge against an administrative resolution is unfounded or without sufficient basis. This outcome means that the existing administrative decision stands as is, reinforcing the presumption of its correctness and effectiveness, thereby closing the path for administrative appeal and necessitating judicial intervention only if further contestation is pursued .
The administrative resolution process differs from judicial processes primarily in scope and enforcement. Administratively, the scope is often limited to the determination and enforcement of public policy and regulatory compliance, operating under expedited procedures that reflect governmental prerogatives. Enforcement of administrative decisions is immediate and self-executing (ejecutividad), generally without requiring prior judicial involvement. Conversely, judicial processes have broader and more formal scope encompassing detailed legal scrutiny and involve legally binding enforcement that requires judicial affirmation, particularly when adjudicating individual rights and obligations .
Autotutela declarative refers to the administration's ability to issue administrative acts to declare what is right in a specific case, including resolving disputes between parties without requiring prior judicial recognition. It involves the modification of legal situations and operates independently of a judicial process, although it can be later subjected to judicial review . On the other hand, autotutela executive allows the administration to execute its own decisions and make them effective in reality, even against the will of those obligated, while still being open to judicial review through contentious administrative processes .
The concept of 'ejecutividad' in autotutela administrativa pertains to the administrative acts' ability to be executed or enforced in real-world scenarios, reflecting the administration's power to implement its resolutions. This concept implies that administrative acts can be actioned upon immediately, without needing a prior declarative judicial ruling, although they remain open to post-execution judicial scrutiny for legality, thereby ensuring their practical effect while providing a channel for legal challenge .
Allowing the declaration and execution of decisions prior to judicial involvement is crucial in the administrative system to ensure swift, effective governance and regulatory compliance. This autonomy facilitates timely administrative action, essential in managing public resources and implementing policy agendas. By operating under presumptive legitimacy, the system negates delay associated with judicial proceedings, supporting fluid governance. However, maintaining post-action judicial review balances this expedience with necessary legal oversight, preventing abuses of administrative power and ensuring protections for individual rights .
Administrative resolutions, presumed legitimate, may still require judicial confirmation to ensure the protection of individual rights under the law. This is because administrative decisions that affect private parties or modify existing legal situations may need further validation to ensure fairness and compliance with broader legal principles. Judicial intervention provides a necessary check against administrative overreach and asserts a final authoritative affirmation on legal rights and obligations, balancing autonomous administrative action with constitutional safeguards .
