MONGABAY.COM
Mongabay.com seeks to raise interest in and appreciation of wild lands and wildlife, while examining the impact of emerging trends in climate, technology, economics, and finance on conservation and development (more)
WEEKLY NEWSLETTER
|
|
Chile
Index
Although the comptroller general serves as an effective
watchdog over government officials and functionaries,
definitive
and binding decisions on constitutional matters are made
by the
Constitutional Tribunal. The tribunal was created by the
constitutional reforms of 1970 (Law 17,284) to provide the
country
with a body that would serve as final arbiter on
constitutional
matters and thus prevent the adoption of unconstitutional
laws or
decrees. Like other "neutral" institutions, such as the
military
and the courts, the tribunal was highly politicized by the
crisis
of the Allende years. It was unable to serve as an
effective
arbiter as the institutional conflict--between the
government and
its opposition and between the presidency and Congress--as
well as
the political conflict escalated beyond the point of no
return.
Under the 1980 constitution, the Constitutional
Tribunal
consists of seven members appointed on a staggered basis
to eightyear terms. The Supreme Court selects three, Cosena two,
and the
president and Senate one each. The tribunal possesses
broad powers
to judge the constitutionality of laws at all points in
the
legislative process. It can also declare unconstitutional
any
decrees issued by the president of the republic and rule
on the
constitutionality of a plebiscite. The tribunal resolves
disputes
among government ministers, legislators, and the executive
and can
rule on complaints presented by the president or members
of either
of the legislative chambers, provided that at least
one-fourth of
the members agree to register a formal grievance. The
tribunal also
rules on constitutional challenges to the legality of
political
parties (Article 19).
The Constitutional Tribunal is the court of last resort
on
constitutional matters. Article 83 of the constitution
provides
that "no appeal whatsoever shall apply against the
decisions of the
Constitutional Tribunal." The article adds that "once the
court has
decided that a specific legal precept is constitutional,
the
Supreme Court may not declare it inapplicable on the same
grounds
on which the decision was based."
The parties represented in the Aylwin coalition were
not
comfortable with the tribunal's broad jurisdiction. In
their view,
the tribunal's far-reaching powers to determine the
constitutionality of laws, presidential decrees, and other
government decisions made it a highly undemocratic body,
particularly given that its members are appointed almost
entirely
by nonelected bodies. The Aylwin government favored
constitutional
reforms that would give the president and Congress the
right to
appoint a substantial majority of the tribunal members.
The
government also sought to limit the tribunal's power to
decide the
constitutionality of laws approved by Congress and signed
by the
president.
Reforms seemed unlikely in the immediate future because
the
parties of the right argued that a tribunal designed to
protect the
supremacy of the constitution would be undermined, should
it be
constituted by those very bodies that would be
scrutinized. In
addition, those accepting the status of the tribunal
pointed to the
positive role it played in settling the dispute over the
status of
independent candidates in the 1992 municipal elections.
They
contended that the tribunal's role in settling the dispute
helped
avert a major political dispute that might have delayed
the
elections.
Data as of March 1994
|
|