Bolivia, Plurinational Constitutional Court, 26 February 2021, No. 0028/2021-S3 (reg no. Exp: 34811-2020-70-AP)
Case overview
Country
Case ID
Decision date
Deciding body (English)
Deciding body (Original)
Type of body
Type of Court (material scope)
- Constitutional Court
- The term “plurinational” is an inclusive term that refers to the multiple ethnicities that conform the State of Bolivia. It does not imply that Bolivia is a Federal State but a “plural State”.
Type of jurisdiction
Type of Court (territorial scope)
Instance
Area
Outcome of the decision
Link to the full text of the decision
General Summary
Due to the pandemic generated by COVID-19, the offices of the General Service of Personal Identification (SEGIP) -Chuquisaca and the Municipalities of Camargo, Monteagudo, and Villa Serrano were closed. This entity is in charge of issuing the identity card, an essential document for the exercise of civil life. Due to the situation, a popular action has been filed with the objective of getting the SEGIP offices to reopen.
The Plurinational Constitutional Court rejected the Petitioner’s claim and revoked the first instance decision.
Facts of the case
- The Petitioner filed a popular action on behalf of the people of the entire department of Chuquisaca because the General Service of Personal Identification (SEGIP) offices had been closed, preventing them from obtaining civil identification documents and drivers’ licenses.
- Since March 17, 2020, SEGIP closed its offices, initially due to COVID-19, because the entire institution needed to provide its personnel with equipment, training, and study of alternative measures.
- However, up to the date of filing of this tutelary action, more than four months had passed -without attention-, when Supreme Decree (SD) 4229 of April 29, 2020, issued by the Central Government, provided that as of May 31 of that year, the conditioned and dynamic quarantine was established, based on the risk conditions determined by the Ministry of Health and Sports, in its capacity as Governing Body for the application of the corresponding measures that the municipalities and departments must comply with. In addition, Article 8 of this Supreme Decree determined that some public service entities could resume their activities in order to give dynamism to the economy; however, the Defendants persisted in a negligent manner without providing any guidance to the population of Chuquisaca, limiting themselves to closing their doors.
Type of measure challenged
Measures, actions, remedies claimed
Individual / collective enforcement
Nature of the parties
Claimant(s)
Private collectiveDefendant(s)
Public
Type of procedure
Reasoning of the deciding body
Identified as the problem raised through this defense action, in accordance with the constitutional jurisprudence cited in Legal Basis III.1. of this constitutional decision, which finds that according to the provisions of Article 135 of the CPE, the popular action is a suitable jurisdictional mechanism for the protection of collective and diffuse rights and interests related to patrimony, space, public safety and health, environment, and others of similar nature.
In this sense, the issue raised does not correspond to being analyzed by means of the present defense action, since the Petitioner denounces the violation of the rights to identity, health, petition, dignity, property, economic, commercial and financial rights, social security, free movement, work, sovereignty, citizenship, and access to justice. Consequently, considering that said rights recognized in the Political Constitution of the State, are within the individual rights that Bolivians have, corresponding to being analyzed for the purpose of their concession, by means of the action of constitutional protection, so that the claim alleged through this popular action, can be considered through said action of defense, since it is not within the collective or diffuse rights or interests.
In this context, it should be considered that an individual right does not become collective when it is made on behalf of a collective, and it should be considered that: “...the right conferred to an individual person does not become collective because it is claimed at the same time by several persons; a contrario sensu, a collective right does not cease to be such because it is only claimed by one person” (SCP 0788/2011-R of May 30).
Conclusions of the deciding body
The Plurinational Constitutional Court rejected the Petitioner’s claim and revoked the first instance decision.
Fundamental Right(s) involved
- Right to privacy
- Right to identity; Right to access to public services
Fundamental Right(s) instruments (constitutional provisions, international conventions and treaties)
General principle applied
Balancing techniques and principles (proportionality, reasonableness, others)
Although this principle is not explicitly referred as such, the Court uses it to explain why they reject the petition: “The Petitioner misdirected his claim when filing the present popular action, and it was appropriate, in effect, to deny the protection requested without addressing the merits of the issue raised”
