Informe jurídico de la demanda de inconstitucionalidad recaída en el Expediente N.° 00009-2014-AI/TC
No hay miniatura disponible
Fecha
2021-08-17
Autores
Título de la revista
ISSN de la revista
Título del volumen
Editor
Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú
DOI
Resumen
El presente trabajo analiza la sentencia del Tribunal Constitucional recaída en el
Expediente N.° 00009-2014-AI/TC que declara fundada la demanda de
inconstitucionalidad interpuesta contra el artículo 5 de la Ley N.° 29720, que promueve
las emisiones de valores mobiliarios y fortalece el mercado de capitales.
Para ello utilizaremos el método deductivo y descriptivo, comenzando por analizar los
argumentos centrales del Tribunal Constitucional desde la titularidad de los derechos
fundamentales hasta el núcleo duro del derecho a la intimidad en su dimensión económica
y su afectación en el caso concreto.
Este último análisis se dará desde el test de proporcionalidad como herramienta casuística
para evaluar la constitucionalidad de un eventual conflicto de derechos fundamentales.
Con ello, determinaremos si la conclusión a la que llegó el Tribunal Constitucional
respecto al subprincipio de idoneidad es correcta pues, en sus palabras, no existe una
relación entre la medida legislativa analizada y el fin de la transparencia del mercado.
Sin embargo, luego del análisis de la aplicación de los subprincipios del test de
proporcionalidad en la presente sentencia (específicamente, del de idoneidad y
necesidad), consideramos que, a pesar de que el Tribunal Constitucional llegó a una
decisión correcta en mayoría, debe aplicar criterios más rigurosos al momento de
ponderar entre derechos fundamentales.
Por ello, finalizamos el presente trabajo con una incipiente propuesta consistente en el
análisis de intensidades en el subprincipio de idoneidad y en el análisis de las perspectivas
en el subprincipio de necesidad, con la finalidad de incrementar el estándar argumentativo
actualmente empleado para el test de proporcionalidad.
The following study reviews the ruling of the Constitutional Tribunal in Case N.° 00009- 2014-AI/TC, which declares the unconstitutionality of article 5 of Law N.° 29720. To do so, we will use the deductive and descriptive method, starting by a general study of the Peruvian unconstitutionality process and its main characteristics (parameter of control, object of control, effects of the judgment and basic principles of constitutional interpretation) and then delving into the central arguments of the claim and of the Constitutional Court that underpinned the decision. To do so, we will use the deductive and descriptive method, starting by analysing the main arguments of the Constitutional Tribunal from the entitlement of fundamental rights to the right to be alone in its economic dimension and the specific impacts in this case. This analysis will be based on the balancing test as a case-by-case tool for assessing the constitutionality of conflict between constitutional rights. In Doing so, we will examine the test carried out by the Constitutional Tribunal in the decision, with the aim of determining whether the conclusion it reached regarding the sub-principle of adequacy is correct, since, in its words, there is no correspondence between the legislative measure in question and market transparency as an end. However, after having analysed the application of the subprinciples of the balancing test in this ruling (specifically, the adequacy and necessity), we believe that, even though the Constitutional Tribunal reached a correct ruling in the majority, it should adopt more rigorous standards when weighing between fundamental rights. For this reason, we conclude this paper with an incipient proposal consisting of the analysis of intensities in the subprinciple of adequacy and the analysis of perspectives in the subprinciple of necessity, with the purpose of raising the argumentative standard currently used for the balancing test.
The following study reviews the ruling of the Constitutional Tribunal in Case N.° 00009- 2014-AI/TC, which declares the unconstitutionality of article 5 of Law N.° 29720. To do so, we will use the deductive and descriptive method, starting by a general study of the Peruvian unconstitutionality process and its main characteristics (parameter of control, object of control, effects of the judgment and basic principles of constitutional interpretation) and then delving into the central arguments of the claim and of the Constitutional Court that underpinned the decision. To do so, we will use the deductive and descriptive method, starting by analysing the main arguments of the Constitutional Tribunal from the entitlement of fundamental rights to the right to be alone in its economic dimension and the specific impacts in this case. This analysis will be based on the balancing test as a case-by-case tool for assessing the constitutionality of conflict between constitutional rights. In Doing so, we will examine the test carried out by the Constitutional Tribunal in the decision, with the aim of determining whether the conclusion it reached regarding the sub-principle of adequacy is correct, since, in its words, there is no correspondence between the legislative measure in question and market transparency as an end. However, after having analysed the application of the subprinciples of the balancing test in this ruling (specifically, the adequacy and necessity), we believe that, even though the Constitutional Tribunal reached a correct ruling in the majority, it should adopt more rigorous standards when weighing between fundamental rights. For this reason, we conclude this paper with an incipient proposal consisting of the analysis of intensities in the subprinciple of adequacy and the analysis of perspectives in the subprinciple of necessity, with the purpose of raising the argumentative standard currently used for the balancing test.
Descripción
Palabras clave
Perú--Legislación, Perú. Tribunal Constitucional--Jurisprudencia, Secreto bancario--Legislación--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