Resumen Las inhabilidades son restricciones que delimitan el derecho de acceso a cargos o funciones públicas; en ese sentido tienen un carácter prohibitivo, taxativo y no enunciativo, en tanto su interpretación es restrictiva, por lo que no procede su uso analógico ni extensivo. No obstante, la reciente jurisprudencia de la Sección Quinta del Consejo de Estado ha fijado nuevos criterios interpretativos que flexibilizan el alcance de las causales de inhabilidad electoral. La presente reflexión aborda la naturaleza de estas inhabilidades por medio de su confrontación con la tesis de la justicia como imparcialidad desarrollada por J. Rawls en su obra Teoría de la justicia, con el ánimo de identificar si esta nueva hermenéutica desconoce o no los mínimos fundamentales de los ciudadanos. El enfoque de la investigación es de orden cualitativo, con un método reflexivo y crítico, mediante la revisión y el análisis documental de normas, jurisprudencia y doctrina, que se contrapone con la hermenéutica jurisprudencial sobre el tema objeto de estudio. Se halló que, a la luz de la tesis de J. Rawls, la lectura finalista de esta reciente jurisprudencia desconoce principios básicos para salvaguardar un orden social justo, como el respeto por las libertades básicas y la igualdad de oportunidades de los ciudadanos, circunstancias que, además, ponen en riesgo la seguridad jurídica como elemento fundamental de un Estado social y democrático de derecho.
Abstract Disqualifications are restrictions that seek to limit the right of access to public positions or functions. In this sense, they have a prohibitive, restrictive, and non-explanatory nature, while their interpretation is restrictive, and therefore their analogical or extensive application is not appropriate. However, the recent jurisprudence of the Fifth Section of the Council of State has established new interpretive criteria that make the scope of the grounds for electoral disqualification more flexible. In this sense, the present reflection addresses the nature of these inabilities through its confrontation with the thesis of justice as impartiality developed by J. Rawls in his work The Theory of Justice, with the aim of establishing whether this new hermeneutics ignores or not the fundamental minimums of citizens. The research approach is qualitative, reflective and critical, through the review and documentary analysis of rules, jurisprudence and doctrine, which is opposed to the jurisprudential hermeneutics on the subject under study. In that order, it was identified that, in the light of J. Rawls's thesis, the finalist reading applied by this recent jurisprudence ignores basic principles to safeguard a fair social order, such as respect for basic freedoms and equal opportunities of citizens, circumstances that also put legal certainty at risk as fundamental element of a social and democratic State of law.
See how this article has been cited at scite.ai
scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.