Sentencia N° 265/2021 del Expediente 00001-2020-PI/TC “Caso de la sanción y prevención de la pesca ilegal”
No hay miniatura disponible
Fecha
2023-08-02
Autores
Título de la revista
ISSN de la revista
Título del volumen
Editor
Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú
DOI
Resumen
El presente informe realiza un análisis de los problemas jurídicos hallados en la
Sentencia N° 265/2021 del Expediente 00001-2020-PI/TC. Respecto a la
demanda de inconstitucionalidad por 5135 ciudadanos contra el Decreto
Legislativo Nº 1393, emitido a consecuencia de la Ley Autoritativa Nº30823; ello
con el objetivo de regular la interdicción en las actividades de pesca ilegal.
Para analizar la validez constitucional del Decreto Legislativo, analizaremos el
contenido de los artículos relacionados a las infracciones constitucionales y
examinaremos su afectación a los derechos fundamentales para poder asegurar
o no que el Decreto Legislativo N° 1393 es constitucional o deviene en
inconstitucional. En ese sentido, se propone como objetivos i) demostrar que el
Decreto Legislativo Nº 1393 no tiene vicios de inconstitucionalidad formal, debido
a que se encuentran dentro de los confines de la materia delegada mediante la
Ley Nº 30823, ii) evidenciar que el artículo 3 del DL Nº 1393, no vulnera el
derecho de propiedad en función de la doctrina y jurisprudencia, iii) evidenciar
que el artículo 6 del DL Nº 1393 al disponer las acciones de interdicción contra
la pesca ilegal, no atenta contra la libre iniciativa privada, iv) demostrar que la
Única Disposición Complementaria Transitoria transgrede la tutela procesal
efectiva, v) verificar si las medidas de interdicción de la Tercera Disposición
Complementaria Final del DL N° 1393 vulneran el derecho de petición, vi)
determinar si la Segunda Disposición Complementaria Final una medida
excesiva de la función pública.
This report analyzes the legal problems found in Judgment No. 265/2021 of File 00001-2020-PI/TC. Regarding the unconstitutionality claim by 5135 citizens against Legislative Decree No. 1393, issued as a result of Authoritative Law No. 30823; this with the objective of regulating the interdiction of illegal fishing activities. To analyze the constitutional validity of the Legislative Decree, we will analyze the content of the articles related to constitutional infractions and we will examine their affectation on fundamental rights in order to ensure or not that Legislative Decree No. 1393 is constitutional or becomes unconstitutional. In this sense, it is proposed as objectives i) to demonstrate that Legislative Decree No. 1393 has no defects of formal unconstitutionality, because they are within the confines of the matter delegated by Law No. 30823, ii) to show that article 3 of DL No. 1393, does not violate the right to property based on doctrine and jurisprudence, iii) demonstrate that article 6 of DL No. 1393, when providing for interdiction actions against illegal fishing, does not violate free private initiative, iv ) demonstrate that the Sole Transitory Complementary Provision violates the effective procedural protection, v) verify if the interdiction measures of the Third Final Complementary Provision of Legislative Decree No. 1393 violate the right of petition, vi) determine if the Second Final Complementary Provision is an excessive measure of the public function.
This report analyzes the legal problems found in Judgment No. 265/2021 of File 00001-2020-PI/TC. Regarding the unconstitutionality claim by 5135 citizens against Legislative Decree No. 1393, issued as a result of Authoritative Law No. 30823; this with the objective of regulating the interdiction of illegal fishing activities. To analyze the constitutional validity of the Legislative Decree, we will analyze the content of the articles related to constitutional infractions and we will examine their affectation on fundamental rights in order to ensure or not that Legislative Decree No. 1393 is constitutional or becomes unconstitutional. In this sense, it is proposed as objectives i) to demonstrate that Legislative Decree No. 1393 has no defects of formal unconstitutionality, because they are within the confines of the matter delegated by Law No. 30823, ii) to show that article 3 of DL No. 1393, does not violate the right to property based on doctrine and jurisprudence, iii) demonstrate that article 6 of DL No. 1393, when providing for interdiction actions against illegal fishing, does not violate free private initiative, iv ) demonstrate that the Sole Transitory Complementary Provision violates the effective procedural protection, v) verify if the interdiction measures of the Third Final Complementary Provision of Legislative Decree No. 1393 violate the right of petition, vi) determine if the Second Final Complementary Provision is an excessive measure of the public function.
Descripción
Palabras clave
Tribunales constitucionales--Jurisprudencia--Perú, Derecho penal--Jurisprudencia--Perú, Pesca--Legislación--Perú, Tutela jurisdiccional--Perú
Citación
Colecciones
item.page.endorsement
item.page.review
item.page.supplemented
item.page.referenced
Licencia Creative Commons
Excepto se indique lo contrario, la licencia de este artículo se describe como info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess