part 2 : Juan Pablo Ciudad, lawyer: (The current constitution enshrines the abhorrent distinction between liberal and social rights)

 Juan Pablo Ciudad, lawyer: (The current constitution enshrines the abhorrent distinction between liberal and social rights)

part 2

look at part 1 Here




Does that happen with the current constitution?


Unfortunately, in Chile today we do not have gender equality in terms of salary and many other things. We have no equality when it comes to diversity or sexual dissent. It seems to me that the new constitution must address some of these problems and give equal recognition and dignity to all people. I give you some examples. There are some constitutions in Latin America that propose stone concepts about "family" and the still heterogeneous mentality of patriarchal marriage. If one visits, for example, the Constitution of Peru, Colombia or Venezuela, one realizes that those constitutions, some of which are very progressive in the field of social rights, are quite stagnant in other matters. The mission of the Constitution is to allow the establishment of rights and the consolidation of possibilities,

What mechanisms can be implemented until this constitution is fed to these permanent changes in society?


The first thing is that it is the Constitution that raises the possibility of combining representative democracy with participatory democracy. In other words, there are participatory and democratic channels, where citizens can express themselves. For example, plebiscites on issues related to evaluating people's aspects or, as he insisted, issues sensitive to our history and building our culture. These issues, if they can be referendumed or consulted, as stipulated in much of the constitutions of Europe and Latin America, will eventually make citizens feel more legitimate and reconcile with their democratic system, their government system and their public powers. I think this is a mechanism, blending representative democracy with participatory, deliberative and advisory examples.

What do they mean when the book proposes a "strict deprecin to social rights"?


What happens is that during the development of constitutional law, it has been suggested that certain aspects of the Constitution exist. Therefore, if ordered by the Constitution, they must be fully embodied in lower-ranking laws, public policies and budget ary items set by governments. When one supports the idea of strict constitutionalism in matters of social rights, it means that if the Constitution sets specific obligations for the state, which relates to the satisfaction of public goods and certain rights of the population, such as health, education, culture, sports, etc., this means that governments must necessarily develop public policies aimed at gradually realizing these rights.

What else?


Secondly, to find judicial remedies for the population if they consider that these social rights are restricted, affected or threatened. Today, the 1980 Constitution provides for an abhorrent distinction between liberal and social rights. Liberal rights are granted the possibility of judicialization through treatment, a protection measure, i.e. if any of these rights are violated, I have a tool to go to court and he orders the necessary action to marry my right that can be re-established. But with regard to social rights, the Constitution in Article 20, does not enshrine them for legal protection.

And what does that say about our Constitution?


Therefore, in our constitutional model, social rights have less validity and prestige, so their satisfaction is less stringent for political institutions. The establishment of a strict constitutionality in social rights means that we take seriously that these are the obligations of the state, even from some of the special powers that are very influential in social life, and whose violation involves a violation of the rule of law. Social constitutionalism is desirable not only because it generates a better quality of life for the most vulnerable citizens, but also because it guarantees social cohesion and peace for the entire population. When an important part feels that without basic rights, without the goods and services necessary for his daily development, for his life, brutal crises and cracks are generated,

What social rights should the new constitution guarantee so that it is not considered "worldly and dirty"?


It seems to me that the founding process that we will live in in either way or the two constituent bodies will require major conventions in order to establish and promote social rights. These great conventions will need to be edited by the public. If these two issues don't happen, I really think it's hard for us to have a structurally different constitution in terms of social rights. With regard to social rights in particular, the public network of the right to health must be strengthened, all economic obstacles removed and administrative obstacles reduced so that this right can be fully satisfied. I think it is necessary for the Constitution to establish a system of progress to increase public infrastructure,