Publication: Auto precedente en Argentina. Obligatoriedad de argumentar valorativamente su inaplicación
Loading...
Date
2023
Authors
Prieto, Guido Gabriel
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Universidad Católica de Santa Fe
Abstract
El disparador de la presente investigación se podría sintetizar
en la siguiente pregunta: ¿pueden los jueces en Argentina apartarse de
sus precedentes sin argumentar sustantivamente su decisión en lo que
respecta al abandono de su propio precedente? Esto deriva en una
segunda pregunta: ¿por qué es relevante que los jueces fundamenten la
decisión de apartarse de sus propios precedentes a través de una
justificación robusta tanto en lo sustantivo como en lo formal?
Para dilucidar las respuestas a los interrogantes planteados, la
primera parte se concentra en establecer el marco doctrinal aplicable.
Luego, en la segunda parte, se examina la jurisprudencia de la CSJN
relacionada con el precedente, sus valores y principios involucrados
para arribar a conclusiones específicas que resultan propias del auto
precedente.
En la labor descripta, se hallaron inconsistencias conceptuales
(similitud y analogía, precedente y jurisprudencia), pero también
fallos contradictorios y posturas cambiantes en lo que refiere al
precedente por parte máximo tribunal nacional; ya sea al momento de
abordar el precedente vertical, horizontal o auto precedente. Con todo,
en los últimos lustros la CSJN comenzó a dar entidad al precedente
vertical obligatorio en relación con sus fallos por ser el último
interprete de la Constitución nacional.
El examen del instituto del precedente en nuestro país permite
observar que este no es ajeno a nuestro ordenamiento jurídico (existen
referencias legislativas, jurisprudenciales y doctrinarias al respecto).
De hecho, la diferencia más preponderante con el sistema del common
6
law es el lugar que se le ha dado a tal herramienta al momento de
administrar justicia en cada uno de los sistemas.
Como resultado de la labor investigativa se constató que la
debida argumentación del cambio de criterio por parte del juez con
relación a precedentes análogos contribuiría a la concreción material
de la igualdad, la seguridad jurídica y el debido proceso.
Así, la respuesta a las preguntas iniciales se podría resumir de
la siguiente manera: en Argentina los jueces no tienen la obligación de
fundar argumentativamente el abandono de sus propios precedentes,
aunque es necesario que sí pese sobre ellos tal obligación. Solo así
podremos contar con un eficiente y correcto servicio de justicia que
tenga por fin a la paz social.
The question: can judges in Argentina depart from their precedents without substantively arguing their decision regarding the abandonment of their own precedent, is the trigger that motivates the present research. It leads to a second question: why is it relevant for judges to substantiate their decision to depart from their precedents through a solid justification, both substantively and formally? To elucidate the answers to the questions posed, the first part of the paper focuses on establishing the applicable doctrinal framework and then, in the second part, analyses the case law of the CSJN related to precedent, its values and principles involved, in order to arrive at specific conclusions specific to self-precedent. In the work described inconsistencies in terminology (similarity and analogy, precedent, and jurisprudence) were found, as well as contradictory rulings and changing positions over time on the part of the highest national court with regard to precedent, whether vertical, horizontal, or self-precedent. In recent years, however, the CSJN has begun to give importance to binding vertical precedent in relation to its rulings, as it is the ultimate interpreter of the national Constitution. Analyzing the institute of precedent in our country allows us to observe that it is not alien to our legal system (there are legislative, jurisprudential, and doctrinal references to it), the most important difference with the common law system being the place given to this tool at the time of administering justice in each of the systems. As a result of the research work, it was found that the argumentation of the change of criterion by the judge in relation to analogous precedents contributes to equality, legal security, and due process. From the research work it emerged that the answer to the initial questions is that in Argentina judges are not obliged to justify the abandonment of their own precedents, although it is necessary for them to be under such an obligation. For the sake of an efficient and fair service that aims to achieve social peace.
The question: can judges in Argentina depart from their precedents without substantively arguing their decision regarding the abandonment of their own precedent, is the trigger that motivates the present research. It leads to a second question: why is it relevant for judges to substantiate their decision to depart from their precedents through a solid justification, both substantively and formally? To elucidate the answers to the questions posed, the first part of the paper focuses on establishing the applicable doctrinal framework and then, in the second part, analyses the case law of the CSJN related to precedent, its values and principles involved, in order to arrive at specific conclusions specific to self-precedent. In the work described inconsistencies in terminology (similarity and analogy, precedent, and jurisprudence) were found, as well as contradictory rulings and changing positions over time on the part of the highest national court with regard to precedent, whether vertical, horizontal, or self-precedent. In recent years, however, the CSJN has begun to give importance to binding vertical precedent in relation to its rulings, as it is the ultimate interpreter of the national Constitution. Analyzing the institute of precedent in our country allows us to observe that it is not alien to our legal system (there are legislative, jurisprudential, and doctrinal references to it), the most important difference with the common law system being the place given to this tool at the time of administering justice in each of the systems. As a result of the research work, it was found that the argumentation of the change of criterion by the judge in relation to analogous precedents contributes to equality, legal security, and due process. From the research work it emerged that the answer to the initial questions is that in Argentina judges are not obliged to justify the abandonment of their own precedents, although it is necessary for them to be under such an obligation. For the sake of an efficient and fair service that aims to achieve social peace.