The Constitutional Court has issued opinions on emergency economic decree laws issued by the government, arguing that this power cannot be understood as a blank card nor can it be used as a tool to circumvent the system of checks and balances.

The exceptional power to legislate, by itself, through the issuance of a decree of law on economic urgency, in a situation of death on the cross, is of an extraordinary and limited nature so as not to affect the principles of separation of powers and democratic decision-making. “This is extraordinary because, in an ordinary political context, the power to enact laws corresponds to the National Assembly through parliamentary debate with the participation of the executive as a co-legislator. On the other hand, in the extraordinary democratic regime that includes Article 148 of the Constitution, in the absence of a legislative body, the President of the Republic has the power to enact regulations with the force of law without room for prior consideration.said the Court.

And under this premise of an exceptional situation and that the power of the president is limited, the Court issued a key rule: “The absence of a legislature only allows the executive to issue decrees and emergency economic laws to tackle urgent economic needs that require urgent state action and, therefore, cannot wait for the re-establishment of the National Assembly”.

The court itself clarifies that this does not mean that the power to issue a decree refers exclusively to the occurrence of extraordinary situations, force majeure or force majeure (such as a natural disaster), since there may be situations of other causes that are urgent and require the immediate intervention of the state.

The Court also clarifies that the power to control decrees in the situation of cross-death does not imply that this body becomes a political actor or co-legislator, nor does it compensate for the absence of parliamentary deliberation, since its role is exclusively jurisdiction and control. previous constitutionality to preemptively examine draft decrees in the light of the Constitution in order to determined whether they are compatible with it or otherwise violate or contradict its provisions, for which it even opened the door for third parties to make proposals -via amicus curiae- to determine whether there are certain issues or articles that require a more detailed study.

In short, the Constitutional Court has made it clear that the death of the cross causes an extraordinary temporary space in which decree laws on economic urgency have a previous constitutional revision that is much deeper than a simple revision of the form, since it will be verified that they are in accordance with the particularity of the matter ( economic), that the text in its entirety does not affect constitutional rights or contradict the Constitution; and opportunity, i.e. that the urgency is of such magnitude that the establishment of the next National Assembly cannot be expected. I agree with the criteria. (OR)