Colombian constitutionalism

To understand contemporary Colombian constitutionalism, it is imperative to analyze the dogmatic and institutional rupture between the nineteenth-century model of 1886 and the paradigm established in 1991.

The 1886 Constitution, the result of the political project known as La Regeneración led by Rafael Núñez and Miguel Antonio Caro, consolidated a confessional, unitary, and rigidly centralist State. From a legal perspective, this model was characterized by the primacy of statute law over the Constitution (classical legalism), a restrictive conception of public liberties, and the normalization of states of exception—specifically the state of siege—as an ordinary mechanism for government and public order control.

In contrast, the promulgation of the 1991 Constitution represented an epistemological and material shift in the legal system, marking the transition toward a neo-constitutionalist model. This new paradigm was founded on the direct normative force of the Constitution, the establishment of the Social State of Law (Estado Social de Derecho), and participatory democracy. Three institutional innovations were decisive in this process: (i) the creation of the Acción de Tutela (writ for the protection of fundamental rights), an expedited mechanism that materialized the procedural efficacy of fundamental rights; (ii) the establishment of the Constitutional Bloc (Art. 93), which integrated international human rights law into the domestic legal order with constitutional rank; and (iii) the creation of the Constitutional Court as the supreme organ of constitutional jurisdiction.

The efficacy of the 1991 Charter has been intrinsically linked to the activism and expansive interpretation of the Constitutional Court, supported by civil society mobilization through the public action of unconstitutionality. The Court’s jurisprudence has consolidated Colombia as a global benchmark for what legal doctrine terms transformative constitutionalism.

To illustrate its contribution to the theory of fundamental rights and the control of public power, the following jurisprudential lines stand out:

• The Unconstitutional State of Affairs and structural omissions: Through rulings such as Judgment T-025/2004(concerning forced displacement due to the armed conflict) and Judgment T-760/2008 (which recognized health as an autonomous fundamental right), the Court diagnosed structural failures in public policy. The tribunal assumed a dialogic role, ordering the Executive and Legislative branches to design and fund comprehensive measures to overcome the massive violation of rights.
• Jurisdictional limits to the amendment power: In Judgment C-141/2010, applying the “substitution of the Constitution” doctrine, the Court struck down the law convening a referendum to allow a second consecutive presidential reelection. The tribunal determined that Congress exceeded its competence to amend the Constitution by attempting to substitute the axiological pillars of the 1991 pact, such as the system of checks and balances and democratic alternation.
• Constitutional mutation and minority protection: Reflecting an evolutionary interpretation in the face of a legislative protection deficit, the Court recognized the concept of family for same-sex couples (Judgment C-577/2011) and subsequently materialized their fundamental right to enter into civil marriage (Judgment SU-214/2016), consolidating material equality for the LGBTIQ+ population.
• Human dignity, autonomy, and end-of-life: The Court has grounded the right to die with dignity in the free development of personality and the prohibition of cruel and inhuman treatment. It decriminalized euthanasia under three requirements: (i) medical intervention, (ii) free and informed consent, and (iii) the patient must be terminally ill (Judgment C-239/1997) or experiencing intense physical or psychological suffering resulting from a serious and incurable bodily injury or illness (Judgment C-233/2021).
• Balancing reproductive rights: The tribunal transitioned from a model of absolute criminalization to one of gradual protection. Initially, it decriminalized abortion under three extreme circumstances (Judgment C-355/2006). Following a renewed reasonableness analysis of criminal policy and women’s rights, Judgment C-055/2022broadened the spectrum of reproductive freedom by unconditionally decriminalizing abortion up to the 24th week of gestation.

These jurisprudential scenarios will be a central focus of the WCCL 2026 workshops, which will analyze how the Colombian constitutional design responds to persistent tensions in the Global South: wealth polarization, institutional fragility, market asymmetries, and the profound legacy of conflict and violence.nflict, violence and extreme inequality.