Antinomy of the appeal in the common civil declarative process of enrichment without just cause of public officials and employees in El Salvador
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Online |
| Idioma: | spa |
| Publicado: |
Aequus Editorial
2022
|
| Acceso en línea: | https://revistas.ues.edu.sv/index.php/revder/article/view/2268 |
| id |
DERECHO2268 |
|---|---|
| record_format |
ojs |
| institution |
Universidad de El Salvador |
| collection |
Revista Derecho |
| language |
spa |
| format |
Online |
| author |
Umanzor-Umanzor, Irvin Paolo |
| spellingShingle |
Umanzor-Umanzor, Irvin Paolo Antinomy of the appeal in the common civil declarative process of enrichment without just cause of public officials and employees in El Salvador |
| author_facet |
Umanzor-Umanzor, Irvin Paolo |
| author_sort |
Umanzor-Umanzor, Irvin Paolo |
| title |
Antinomy of the appeal in the common civil declarative process of enrichment without just cause of public officials and employees in El Salvador |
| title_short |
Antinomy of the appeal in the common civil declarative process of enrichment without just cause of public officials and employees in El Salvador |
| title_full |
Antinomy of the appeal in the common civil declarative process of enrichment without just cause of public officials and employees in El Salvador |
| title_fullStr |
Antinomy of the appeal in the common civil declarative process of enrichment without just cause of public officials and employees in El Salvador |
| title_full_unstemmed |
Antinomy of the appeal in the common civil declarative process of enrichment without just cause of public officials and employees in El Salvador |
| title_sort |
antinomy of the appeal in the common civil declarative process of enrichment without just cause of public officials and employees in el salvador |
| title_alt |
Antinomias del recurso de apelación en el proceso declarativo común civil de enriquecimiento sin justa causa de funcionarios y empleados públicos en El Salvador |
| publisher |
Aequus Editorial |
| publishDate |
2022 |
| url |
https://revistas.ues.edu.sv/index.php/revder/article/view/2268 |
| work_keys_str_mv |
AT umanzorumanzorirvinpaolo antinomyoftheappealinthecommoncivildeclarativeprocessofenrichmentwithoutjustcauseofpublicofficialsandemployeesinelsalvador AT umanzorumanzorirvinpaolo antinomiasdelrecursodeapelacionenelprocesodeclarativocomuncivildeenriquecimientosinjustacausadefuncionariosyempleadospublicosenelsalvador |
| _version_ |
1822054774832365568 |
| spelling |
DERECHO22682024-06-07T16:14:27Z Antinomy of the appeal in the common civil declarative process of enrichment without just cause of public officials and employees in El Salvador Antinomias del recurso de apelación en el proceso declarativo común civil de enriquecimiento sin justa causa de funcionarios y empleados públicos en El Salvador Umanzor-Umanzor, Irvin Paolo antinomia recurso de apelación proceso declarativo común civil enriquecimiento sin justa causa funcionarios empleados públicos antinomy appeal common civil declarative process enrichment without just cause public officials public employees The Law on Illicit Enrichment of Public Officials and Employees (LEIFEP) is the only one that has survived three constitutions, being catalogued until today as a pre-constitutional law. With the passage of time and its application, LEIFEP has proven to be a regulation with some shortcomings from the administrative and punitive aspects, extending to procedural aspects, specifically in relation to the means of challenge. The article proposes, based on the provisions of Articles 12 and 14 of the LEIFEP, to analyze and describe whether the rules to which the LEIFEP refers to the common process generate substantial inconsistencies in the appeal process as the only means of challenge, supported by a series of judicial resolutions in which normative antinomies or contradictions have been discovered between the LEIFEP and the Code of Civil Procedures (CPrC), known today as Civil and Commercial Procedure Code (CPCM), regarding the objective contestability within the judicial process and functional competence or objective to resolve resources. To understand these antinomies, the articles of the three aforementioned regulations are compared, to conclude, based on the jurisprudence, the LEIFEP and the CPCM, that to fill the gaps of the LEIFEP, in the antinomy of objective impugnability, the heterointegration of the CPCM is not appropriate, while in the antinomy of functional competence, the heterointegration of the aforementioned procedural rule is appropriate, however, in light of historical documents of the legislator of 1959, the competent body to resolve it and why, conclusions that should foreseeably be considered for the issuance of the new Law on Enrichment without Just Cause of Public Officials and Employees (LECAFE). La Ley sobre Enriquecimiento Ilícito de Funcionarios y Empleados Públicos (LEIFEP) es la única que ha subsistido a tres constituciones, siendo catalogada hasta hoy como una ley preconstitucional. La LEIFEP con el paso del tiempo y su aplicación ha demostrado ser una normativa con algunas carencias desde lo administrativo y lo sancionatorio, extendiéndose hasta aspectos procesales, específicamente en lo relativo a los medios de impugnación. El articulo propone, a partir de lo dispuesto en los artículos 12 y 14 de la LEIFEP, analizar y describir si las reglas a las cual remite la LEIFEP al proceso común generan inconsistencias sustanciales en el trámite de la apelación como único medio de impugnación, apoyado en una serie de resoluciones judiciales en las que se han descubierto antinomias o contradicciones normativas entre la LEIFEP y el Código de Procedimientos Civiles (CPrC) hoy Código Procesal Civil y Mercantil (CPCM), en lo concerniente a la impugnabilidad objetiva dentro del proceso judicial y la competencia funcional u objetiva para resolver de los recursos. Para comprender estas antinomias, se compara el articulado de las tres normativas citadas previamente, para concluir con base en la jurisprudencia, la LEIFEP y el CPCM, que para colmar los vacíos de la LEIFEP, en la antinomia de impugnabilidad objetiva no procede la heterointegración del CPCM, mientras que en la antinomia de la competencia funcional, si es procedente la heterointegración de la citada norma procesal, no obstante a que, a la luz de documentos históricos del legislador de 1959, se estableciera el órgano competente de resolverlo y su por qué, conclusiones que previsiblemente deben considerarse para la emisión de la nueva Ley de Enriquecimiento sin justa causa de Funcionarios y Empleados Públicos (LECAFE). Aequus Editorial 2022-12-12 info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion application/pdf https://revistas.ues.edu.sv/index.php/revder/article/view/2268 Revista Derecho; Vol. 6 No. 1 (2022): Revista Derecho; 109-138 Revista Derecho; Vol. 6 Núm. 1 (2022): Revista Derecho; 109-138 2789-3960 2411-1465 spa https://revistas.ues.edu.sv/index.php/revder/article/view/2268/2441 Derechos de autor 2022 Revista Derecho https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0 |