Sugerencias para la primera reforma al Código General del Proceso (Ley 1564 de 2012)

dialnet-ar-18-ART0001283868

dialnet

Dialnet

Dialnet AR

Via Inveniendi et Iudicandi, ISSN 1909-0528, Vol. 13, Nº. 1, 2018, pags. 217-236

Spanish

Código General del Proceso
Ley 1564 de 2012
reforma legislativa
interpretación judicial
código de procedimiento civil
general process code
law 1564 of 2012
legislative reform
judicial interpretation
Code of Civil Procedure

Código General del Proceso
Ley 1564 de 2012
reforma legislativa
interpretación judicial
código de procedimiento civil
general process code
law 1564 of 2012
legislative reform
judicial interpretation
Code of Civil Procedure
Bonilla García, Helver
Sugerencias para la primera reforma al Código General del Proceso (Ley 1564 de 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 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

Article

Bonilla García, Helver

Bonilla García, Helver

Bonilla García, Helver

Sugerencias para la primera reforma al Código General del Proceso (Ley 1564 de 2012)

Sugerencias para la primera reforma al Código General del Proceso (Ley 1564 de 2012)

Sugerencias para la primera reforma al Código General del Proceso (Ley 1564 de 2012)

Sugerencias para la primera reforma al Código General del Proceso (Ley 1564 de 2012)

Sugerencias para la primera reforma al Código General del Proceso (Ley 1564 de 2012)

sugerencias para la primera reforma al código general del proceso (ley 1564 de 2012)

2018

https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/oaiart?codigo=6551396

1709748413219733504

dialnet-ar-18-ART00012838682018-09-21Sugerencias para la primera reforma al Código General del Proceso (Ley 1564 de 2012)Bonilla García, HelverCódigo General del ProcesoLey 1564 de 2012reforma legislativainterpretación judicialcódigo de procedimiento civilgeneral process codelaw 1564 of 2012legislative reformjudicial interpretationCode of Civil ProcedureOn 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 ProcedureEl 12 de julio de 2012 el legislador colombiano entregó al país la Ley 1564 de ese mismo año por medio de la cual expidió el Código General del Proceso (Cogepro) y dictó otras disposiciones. La plena vigencia de esta ley tuvo lugar a partir del 1 de enero de 2016. Los académicos que hicieron parte de la comisión redactora del código y otros juristas destacados presentaron la ley al público en general como la disposición modernizadora del derecho procesal y aquella que terminaría de introducir la oralidad en los temas civiles, de familia, comerciales y agrarios del país, sin embargo a juzgar por la dinámica alcanzada en la práctica judicial a la fecha de entrega de este artículo para su revisión, aquello puede llegar a ser una ilusión más de tantas que abundan en el país, y de paso la ratificación de aquel dicho que expresa que “en Colombia la ley se cumple, pero no se obedece”.El anterior diagnóstico tiene múltiples causas, una es que el Cogepro mantuvo injustificadamente disposiciones que no se acompasan con su espíritu y contuvo algunas que por su imprecisión han permitido una interpretación que no se aviene con los nuevos procedimientos judiciales; además, hay dentro de la comunidad judicial funcionarios que unas veces por desconocimiento y otras por rebeldía no aplican las nuevas disposiciones. También es motivo de la poca ventura que ha tenido el Código nuevo, el hecho de que los litigantes no se han capacitado suficientemente en las nuevas maneras del enjuiciamiento civil, lo que ha conllevado complacencia con la forma en que los jueces procesan.Con las líneas de este artículo pretendemos llamar la atención sobre algunos de los puntos que hemos detectado como problemáticos en la aplicación de la nueva ley y, además, lanzar una propuesta para que si contiene algo de útil sea tenida en cuenta no solo para una reforma legislativa futura, sino también como criterio hermenéutico para los operadores judiciales, porque muchas de las cosas que aquí indicamos parten de hacer una interpretación normativa de la misma obra procesal, distinta de aquellas que han empezado a hacer carrera en nuestros despachos judiciales en desmedro de la intención legislativa plasmada en la exposición de motivos de aquella norma, las cuales nosotros consideramos como huidas hacia el Código de Procedimiento Civil.2018text (article)application/pdfhttps://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/oaiart?codigo=6551396(Revista) ISSN 1909-0528Via Inveniendi et Iudicandi, ISSN 1909-0528, Vol. 13, Nº. 1, 2018, pags. 217-236spaLICENCIA DE USO: Los documentos a texto completo incluidos en Dialnet son de acceso libre y propiedad de sus autores y/o editores. Por tanto, cualquier acto de reproducción, distribución, comunicación pública y/o transformación total o parcial requiere el consentimiento expreso y escrito de aquéllos. Cualquier enlace al texto completo de estos documentos deberá hacerse a través de la URL oficial de éstos en Dialnet. Más información: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/info/derechosOAI | INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS STATEMENT: Full text documents hosted by Dialnet are protected by copyright and/or related rights. This digital object is accessible without charge, but its use is subject to the licensing conditions set by its authors or editors. Unless expressly stated otherwise in the licensing conditions, you are free to linking, browsing, printing and making a copy for your own personal purposes. All other acts of reproduction and communication to the public are subject to the licensing conditions expressed by editors and authors and require consent from them. Any link to this document should be made using its official URL in Dialnet. More info: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/info/derechosOAI