The Judiciary and the Constitutional Court: Tensions Regarding Res Judicata and the Principle of Independence

Abstract

This paper aims to elucidate the tensions that are currently arising between two fundamental pillars of the State, namely the Judiciary (hereinafter PJ) and the Constitutional Court (hereinafter CC). Although the latter plays a very important role, its intervention in jurisdictional matters can create uncertainty and undermine legal certainty. In this sense, the overestimation of powers by the CC could threaten the independence enjoyed by the PJ. This becomes evident when the CC reviews judicial rulings that have already acquired the status of res judicata, which is concerning, as it may violate the principle of immutability of judicial decisions.

Furthermore, the paper analyzes whether it is appropriate for constitutional relief actions (amparo) to be reviewed by the CC after being rejected twice by the PJ, or in the case of habeas corpus, even when filed against Supreme Court decisions. To this end, the paper references the legal framework in Chile, where amparo and habeas corpus claims fall exclusively within the PJ’s jurisdiction. This has helped reduce the CC’s caseload and allowed it to focus on its core function of constitutional interpretation and oversight.

The justification and significance of this study lie in the legal instability resulting from the tensions between the two institutions under analysis. In this regard, the paper doctrinally and normatively examines the functions and powers of both institutions in order to identify the root of the conflict.

Finally, it concludes that although the Constitution grants powers to the CC, it must not expand its interpretation beyond what the supreme norm provides, as doing so could interfere with the functions of other institutions and generate conflicts that threaten the country’s stability.