Suggestions for the first reform of the General Process Code (Law 1564 of 2012)
On July 12, 2012, the Colombian legislator handed over to the country the law 1564 of that same year, by means of which it issued the General Code of Procedure (hereinafter Cogepro) and issued other provisions. The full validity of this law took place from January 1, 2016. The academics who were pa...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | Spanish |
| Published: |
Universidad Santo Tomás
2018-04-01
|
| Series: | Via Inveniendi Et Iudicandi |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://revistas.usantotomas.edu.co/index.php/viei/article/view/4272 |
| Summary: | On July 12, 2012, the Colombian legislator handed over to the country the law 1564 of that same year, by means of which it issued the General Code of Procedure (hereinafter Cogepro) and issued other provisions. The full validity of this law took place from January 1, 2016.
The academics who were part of the code drafting commission and other prominent jurists presented the law to the general public as the modernizing provision of procedural law and that which would finish introducing orality in civic, family, commercial, and however, due to the dynamics achieved in judicial practice as of the date of delivery of this paper for review, this can become an illusion of more than many that abound in the country, and of course the ratification of that said which expresses that in Colombia “the law is fulfilled, but it is not obeyed”.
The previous diagnosis has multiple causes, one is that Cogepro unjustifiably maintained provisions that are not in keeping with its spirit and contained some that, because of their imprecision, have allowed an interpretation that is not in line with the new judicial procedures; in addition, to the fact that there are within the judicial community, officials who at times by ignorance and others by rebellion do not apply the new provisions. It is also a matter of the little success of the new Code, that litigants have not sufficiently trained themselves in new ways of civil prosecution, conveying complacency with the way judges prosecute.
With the lines of this article we intend to draw attention to some of the points that we have identified as problematic in the application of the new law, and also to launch a proposal so that if it contains something useful be taken into account not only for one future legislative reform, but also as a hermeneutical criterion for judicial operatives, because many of the things we indicate here start from a normative interpretation of the same procedural work, different from those that have begun to make a career in our offices Judicial proceedings in detriment of the legislative intention embodied in the explanatory memorandum of that norm, which we consider as fleeing to the Code of Civil Procedure |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1909-0528 1909-0528 |