[ad_1]
The arguments that the chamber chaired by Minister Dobra Lusic raised in both rulings are identical, practically traced, and maintain that it would be part of the powers of the State to make this decision, so it would be outside the jurisdiction of the court. Abofem has already submitted a reinstatement of the appeal, arguing that the ruling is “simply unacceptable”, since “it implies not knowing that the State, in its employing dimension, is capable of committing arbitrary and illegal actions or omissions that violate guarantees constitutional of public officials. ”
This Tuesday the first Chamber of the Santiago Court of Appeals, chaired by the Minister Dobra Lusic Nadal and integrated by the Minister Jessica González Troncoso and the Minister Rafael Andrade Díaz, declared inadmissible the protection remedies presented by Abofem and the Anef to stop the return to face-to-face work that the government imposed on tax workers a few days ago.
The argument presented by both rulings -identical in both cases- maintains that “the purpose of the protection remedy is to restore the rule of law when it has been violated by arbitrary or illegal acts or omissions that threaten, disturb or deprive the legitimate exercise of any of the guarantees exhaustively numbered in article 20 of the Political Constitution of the Republic ”. Something that in neither case would have happened according to the ruling, “because what is claimed falls on a decision of the central administration in the exercise of its functions, whose content and application of the same must be discussed by the corresponding jurisdictional mechanisms ”, sustains the sentence.
Basically, that the State would only be exercising its functions, and that it would not be endangering its workers.
[Itmayinterestyou:[Itmayinterestyou:[Tepuedeinteresar:[Tepuedeinteresar:The lobby and favor payments surrounding Dobra Lusic’s nomination to the Supreme Court]
Given this, Abofem has already submitted a replacement of the protection remedy, in which they affirm that the argument that “what is claimed falls on a decision of the central administration in the exercise of its functions ”,“ it seems to us simply unacceptable ”.
This is because “it is neither the first nor the last time that public officials have acted in this way when a decision of the administration (also in the exercise of their functions) has dictated arbitrary and illegal acts that are capable of violating guarantees. constitutional. Think, for example, of the actions filed for non-renewal of contracts or for an early termination of them ”.
Second, because “accepting the admissibility that we appeal it is equivalent to pointing out that public officials will never again be able to resort to protection (ending with all the vast jurisprudence accumulated by years in this regard) ”.
[Itmayinterestyou:[Itmayinterestyou:[Tepuedeinteresar:[Tepuedeinteresar:Feminist lawyers file an appeal against the Interior and the Treasury by order to return to work]
And thirdly, because supposing that the Court cannot pronounce on the decisions, “implies not knowing that the State, in its employing dimension, is capable of committing arbitrary and illegal actions or omissions, which threaten the constitutional guarantees of public officials ”.
Below you can review both inadmissibility rulings, which if not for the role number of the different causes, would be really identical. Even, both resources were issued at exactly the same minute (13:16) with only 7 seconds apart:
Anef:
Abofem:
[ad_2]
