Justice Minister Hernán Larraín entered the debate over the «train crash» between the Constitutional Court (TC) and the Supreme Court, following a ruling by the highest court in which he dismissed the appeal of a function municipal aria that claimed the protection of labour justice in a case of allegedly unjustified dismissal, even though the TC in a 2018 judgment ruled that this guardianship does not apply to public officials.
The situation – which has led to cross-remarks between the two bodies – was described by the justice holder as «extraordinarily sensitive and serious,» and called for «to settle this proficiency» that he said is not resolved in order Constitutional. «The situation that has occurred as a result of a ruling of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court with the Constitutional Court, we are concerned. We believe that a conflict of this nature, in a contest of such competences, is extraordinarily delicate and serious, because it somehow calls into question our institutional order. And so we believe that it is important to act as much as possible, and in that sense, as a government we call on both institutions to come up with a common accord, to seek a way around those differences that have been publicly manifested,» he said, said Minister Larraín.
The secretary of state added that «We are not as a government a body called to rule this contest of competences, and it is not resolved in the constitutional order (…) therefore, it is important that it is the institutions themselves that seek a solution to this difference of opinion.»
«We hope that this will resolve an issue that has been dragging on for some time, but in any case we also reserve the right to intervene in a regulatory way, that is, promoting constitutional reforms, changes to organic law, leading to laws that can somehow help resolve this situation if both institutions have not done so directly,» he complemented.
On the other hand, Larraín explained that there is no way in the Constitution to resolve these differences. «There are many competition strife between state bodies that have paths of solution, but this one in particular does not. It is assumed that the Constitutional Court has a specific area of jurisdiction, determined by the Constitution, and that the Supreme Court has another, that therefore there should be no overlap of judicial functions, and that both should act within the scope the Constitution has pointed out to them.»