No es garantista el control automático de legalidad para los fallos con responsabilidad fiscal emanados de las contralorías

Abstract

SUMMARY: I. THE CONTEXT OF THE STANDARD STUDIED The ideal is to verify what type of norm is trying to explain the convenience of an immediate control of legality, the reader will focus on the explicit norm that pushed to carry out this work, the one that modifies and the one that will apply in a supposed benefit for the entire contentious jurisdiction.

I.I. A judgment of liability terminated by payment would be verifiable: As we know in advance, a process of fiscal responsibility can be terminated by payment, this is how it is supposed to be finished, then we will find that we are facing a possible confession and it would be a confession that would be put under a double instance in which, if with subsequently the rules of the game are changed, it would not be fair to the investigated party. II. THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES FOR THE INVESTIGATED PARTY IN THE REVIEW BEFORE THE CONTENTIOUS JURISDICTION In an automatic control review that introduces a new norm, we go to where by obligation some rights are violated to the investigated and where he must go to a process to which he was not invoked by the same investigated, but informally leads the norm to be investigated in a different instance, with a different jurisdiction and with a different procedure, a procedure that differs from the fiscal norm and also differs from the general norm of the Colombian process. II.I. The double unjustified instance on the investigated is contrary to the constitutional principles that guarantee due process As mentioned, it is a type of fleeting process without guarantees because it does not allow the general rule of the process to be developed, but rather it abruptly does not give procedural opportunities that are contemplated in the fiscal process and also in the contentious process. It arises from the obligation to put into practice a process of a couple of lines that is supposed to qualify as a double instance, but with a different initial instance that was seen under different regulations and that has to be judged twice under absolutely different laws. III. THERE ARE SEVERAL RULES THAT ARE BLOCKED AS THE CONTROL ADVANCES IN THE CONTENTIOUS JURISDICTION With the path of an immediate mandatory review of the result of a fiscal process with results from the point of view of the fiscal norm, rights are violated that later they will necessarily have no choice but to go looking for them through constitutional actions. III.I. In search of constitutional actions We observe that by trying to decongest the contentious jurisdiction, actions will be sought that will wear down other jurisdictions, likewise, entities that will also have to participate in their own measure will have to be included in this process in order to seek to be guarantors. III.II. The executive branch over the judicial branch One branch of public power is going to trample on the other, from showing whether their work is well done, to pushing for the approval or disapproval of a decision made with criteria very different from what the judge in the contentious jurisdiction is thinking.