Clinging blindly to a repealed provision of the Organic Law of the Judiciary, the CNM has decided that the blind are not eligible to play a position in the judiciary. This fact, imaginable in the universal history of infamy, was denounced by the victim, a lawyer Universidad San Antonio Abad del Cusco, graduate studies and a long life. The refusal of the CNM, through the respective office, it occurred in the month of July (1).
Moreover, the regulatory environment in which the event occurs appears to be insufficient to explain, if they do not examine the ideological background. The rule protects decision responds to a view contrary to the impression of fundamental rights and sense of justice in a constitutional state (2). A provision is consistent with the nineteenth-century imagination of law, in which the law makes the realization of constitutional principles and values.
attributed Interpretation to this rule can stigmatize the disabled and the subject who possesses it. In any case, this idea has been fervently pursued by many commentators and interpreters of law. The civil code has been a recurring area of \u200b\u200badherents to this type of enchantment and intellectual blindness. And the constitutional field has not been maintained free of its influence. It is therefore not surprising that to happen, but the idea is that it does not happen again.
The principle should be guaranteed the right to equality and, therefore, the plexus development of fundamental rights relating to right of access to public office. Therefore, the disability can not be due to decreased rights, rather, the opposite should occur for subjects who possess it, they are placed on equal footing with the other citizens.
blindness can not be a reason in itself and ex ante , disable the subject that has to hold public office. If what is at issue, is to ensure the suitability of prospective judges to optimize the principles of the judicial function, the path is to evaluate the merits and requirements necessary to prove that condition, including rigorous medical examination. Logistics as a pretext to deny the application to a blind person is absurd, since their existence or absence is the responsibility of the institution, in this case, the public prosecutor or the judiciary. These are entities that must provide ramps, guide dogs and all the technology needed to run a qualifying blind intellectuals to hold the office, do, period. In the specific case, this is part of the facts, because it is someone who holds college and university degree.
utilitarian efficiency in pursuit of saving resources, may collude with the legal formalism to justify a response similar to that made in the present case, but the result will surely be unfair and ultimately ineffective. Solutions of this type focus on the rights of some individuals and generate deep gaps that must then be saved, with great expense and effort to prevent erosion of the social system. Unless, of course, it is intended the disappearance of difference, and by force unworkable.
naive confidence in the written rules is also a form of blindness, when they are assumed in a thoughtless or has implications for the authority they represent. But blindness can translocate beyond the sense of sight, to become an emotional obstacle that blocks politically sensitive and difficult sense of criticism. A gap like this is comparable with myopia. Not that is not visible. In any case the images and ideas they are distant the object, distorted by the veil of formalism and little ambition constitutional interpreter.
(1) The final decision is notified by the NJC Memorandum No. 34-2009-SG/CNM July 16 of this. The decision to exclude it was back to have him declared unfit. The tenor of the letter speaks for itself: "(...) considering that Article 10 of the Rules of Competition for the Selection and Appointment of Judges and Prosecutors states that the declaration of a suitable candidate and not limit the power Council verifying compliance with established regulatory requirements to apply, when it was prtinente; exclude its application to that Call for failing to comply with the provisions of Article 177, subsection 5 of the Consolidated Text of the Judicial Power Organization Act, which states: "Article 177 º: Common requirements to be a judge: 5. Do not be blind, deaf or dumb, or suffer from mental illness or permanent physical disability that prevents him from performing duties with due diligence. What notified according to Law Firm: Dr. Jorge Matienzo Luján - Secretary General - National Judicial Council "
(2) Article 177 ° of the LOPJ says:" Do not be blind, deaf or dumb, or suffer from mental illness or permanent physical disability that prevents diligent performance of office "
Moreover, the regulatory environment in which the event occurs appears to be insufficient to explain, if they do not examine the ideological background. The rule protects decision responds to a view contrary to the impression of fundamental rights and sense of justice in a constitutional state (2). A provision is consistent with the nineteenth-century imagination of law, in which the law makes the realization of constitutional principles and values.
attributed Interpretation to this rule can stigmatize the disabled and the subject who possesses it. In any case, this idea has been fervently pursued by many commentators and interpreters of law. The civil code has been a recurring area of \u200b\u200badherents to this type of enchantment and intellectual blindness. And the constitutional field has not been maintained free of its influence. It is therefore not surprising that to happen, but the idea is that it does not happen again.
The principle should be guaranteed the right to equality and, therefore, the plexus development of fundamental rights relating to right of access to public office. Therefore, the disability can not be due to decreased rights, rather, the opposite should occur for subjects who possess it, they are placed on equal footing with the other citizens.
blindness can not be a reason in itself and ex ante , disable the subject that has to hold public office. If what is at issue, is to ensure the suitability of prospective judges to optimize the principles of the judicial function, the path is to evaluate the merits and requirements necessary to prove that condition, including rigorous medical examination. Logistics as a pretext to deny the application to a blind person is absurd, since their existence or absence is the responsibility of the institution, in this case, the public prosecutor or the judiciary. These are entities that must provide ramps, guide dogs and all the technology needed to run a qualifying blind intellectuals to hold the office, do, period. In the specific case, this is part of the facts, because it is someone who holds college and university degree.
utilitarian efficiency in pursuit of saving resources, may collude with the legal formalism to justify a response similar to that made in the present case, but the result will surely be unfair and ultimately ineffective. Solutions of this type focus on the rights of some individuals and generate deep gaps that must then be saved, with great expense and effort to prevent erosion of the social system. Unless, of course, it is intended the disappearance of difference, and by force unworkable.
naive confidence in the written rules is also a form of blindness, when they are assumed in a thoughtless or has implications for the authority they represent. But blindness can translocate beyond the sense of sight, to become an emotional obstacle that blocks politically sensitive and difficult sense of criticism. A gap like this is comparable with myopia. Not that is not visible. In any case the images and ideas they are distant the object, distorted by the veil of formalism and little ambition constitutional interpreter.
(1) The final decision is notified by the NJC Memorandum No. 34-2009-SG/CNM July 16 of this. The decision to exclude it was back to have him declared unfit. The tenor of the letter speaks for itself: "(...) considering that Article 10 of the Rules of Competition for the Selection and Appointment of Judges and Prosecutors states that the declaration of a suitable candidate and not limit the power Council verifying compliance with established regulatory requirements to apply, when it was prtinente; exclude its application to that Call for failing to comply with the provisions of Article 177, subsection 5 of the Consolidated Text of the Judicial Power Organization Act, which states: "Article 177 º: Common requirements to be a judge: 5. Do not be blind, deaf or dumb, or suffer from mental illness or permanent physical disability that prevents him from performing duties with due diligence. What notified according to Law Firm: Dr. Jorge Matienzo Luján - Secretary General - National Judicial Council "
(2) Article 177 ° of the LOPJ
0 comments:
Post a Comment