La igualdad y el trato diferenciado frente a las inhabilidades y categorización municipal de concejales

Abstract

Despite the fact that equality necessarily implies differentiation criteria, access to public office as a councilman is not developed in accordance with said precept, since as a result of paragraph 3 of Article 49 of Law 617 of 2000, there is a constitutionally illegitimate differentiated treatment of councilmen of territorial entities of fourth, fifth and sixth categories over their counterparts of higher categories. Thus, if a legal rule introduces a differentiated treatment among certain recipients, as is the case of spouses, permanent partners, and relatives of councilmen of different municipal categories, it must be justified under criteria of reasonableness and proportionality, since in no way can the regulation assume a discriminatory and unequal criterion. Having said the foregoing, this brief is aimed at identifying to what extent there is a violation of the Fundamental Right of Equality in the framework of the differentiated treatment with respect to the regime of disqualifications of councilors in accordance with the municipal categorization provided for.