In reviewing custody ruling, Supreme Court upheld the jurisdiction of the Attorney General to act in defense of the public

• As a matter of obvious importance and constitutional significance substantial, the High Court described the protection of due process to take account of public prosecution.

The Criminal Cassation Chamber of the Supreme Court overturned a ruling handed down by the guardianship Labour Cassation Chamber of the same court, and granted the protection of the right to due process and access to the justice of the Attorney General's Office In the case of a regular process work against the Social Security Institute (ISS), where the Attorney General intervened in defense of the public.

Background

Seventeen The Court of Bogotá Labor convened the January 13, 2011 the Public Prosecutor in a process which demanded the ISS for the recognition of a pension increase, because the Institute had not answered the complaint.

The Attorney filed on January 26 following a memorial in which he proposed exceptions of no background and prescription of the right claimed, the legal office admitted this intervention. The applicant asked to ignore the objections raised by the Inspector when considering that they were untimely and that the Bank had no authority to present, also requested the annulment of the order by which it took into account the points made by the Control Authority.

The judge denied the request invalid and the applicant filed an appeal with the Superior Tribunal of Bogota office that court reversed the decision saying that exceptions had been filed out of time by the Attorney General and could not be taken into account to utter sentence. The Attorney then filed a custody action invoking the protection of the rights to due process and access to the administration of justice, because it limited its intervention in defense of the public.

The Labour Cassation Chamber of the Supreme Court denied the suit arguing that it was an action against a court order and that was without merit because the requirements were not present to accept. The Attorney General appealed this decision was reviewed by the Criminal Appeals Chamber of the Court, a body which ordered the annulment of the Order of the Superior Court of Bogota who had arranged to disregard the operation of the Public Ministry.

The High Court noted that the intervention of the Attorney General in defense of the public was made on the basis of the Constitution and the Law: "The Public Prosecutor may propose exceptions self defense, not the ISS as defendant-administrator of the assets of social security, but the public interest embodied, among others, the resources allocated to the pension order, which can not be neglected under the pretext that the only entitled to incline his defense is the administrative entity, as if they were their property (...) ".

Facing the untimeliness argument, the Supreme Court said the trial period to propose exceptions to the attorney only applies from this is duly notified, and not from the notification to the respondent company.

In reversing the ruling challenged and protect the fundamental rights to due process and access to justice, the High Court noted that there were no other effective means to defend these rights, which had closed any possibility of exceptions made by the Attorney General could be heard in ordinary procedure. In its decision, the Criminal Cassation Chamber of the Supreme Court noted that this matter is of obvious importance and constitutional significance substantially.