Attorney General's Office sued the constitutionality of the rule which empowers the National Health administrative conciliation advance

In the opinion of the Attorney General, the Attorney General functionally exclude the conciliation procedure, endangers public property

The Attorney General's Office by Unconstitutionality Action requested the Constitutional Court to declare the unconstitutionality of Articles 126 and 135 of Act 1438 of the reforms introduced 2011que General Health System, considering that these are rules that violate the Constitution Policy to exclude functionally the Attorney General of the defense of the public.

The rules demand judicial office to provide National Health and confer jurisdiction to advance reconciliation involving public and for disputes arising between FOSYGA administrator, Health Promoting Entities, service providers, SOAT's insurance companies and Local Authorities.

For the prosecution, the absence of further judicial review of settlements and to reconcile the legal authority and administrative rulings in a different administrative authority to the Attorney General's Office, violated the public interest because it puts at risk the money of Social General Health System.

Questioned said that the rules ignore two of the three budgets that the Constitutional Court has pointed to the validity of the administrative conciliation, suffice it to say the absence of judicial control and the attribution to reconcile different administrative authority to the Attorney General's Office.

In the opinion of the Attorney General, the coexistence of two administrative oriented administrative settlement offers no justification, no legal advantage for operators involved in it and instead turns out to be an unconstitutional mechanism that checks out the state is a body control and later a judicial body to endorse the agreements involving money from the Colombian health system.