ARGUMENTATION IN BINDING CASE LAW ON ERROR OF LAW WITH REGARD TO LEGAL CERTAINTY

Abstract

Every judicial ruling must be duly motivated, and the rulings of the Constitutional Court are no exception. The arguments put forward must be convincing enough to effectively put an end to the conflict between the parties. For this reason, the present investigation focuses on the argumentative analysis of judgment 1158-17-EP/21 in which judgment No. 020-09-SEP-CC, 2009 is used as binding jurisprudence, which determines that the error of law It is located in the insurmountable inconsistency between the foundation of the sentence and the normative and philosophical reality that characterizes the current Constitution, which could generate a broad power of the judges in their judicial decisions.

However, from the reasoning of judgment 1158-17-EP/21, the motivation is not clear insofar as it empowers the magistrates to have a broad decision and be able to decide freely, which would violate the right to legal certainty. Which is very worrying because this ruling in turn also constitutes binding jurisprudence that could well be used in future rulings. The general objective is to analyze the argumentation of binding jurisprudence due to error of law regarding legal certainty. The research modality is qualitative which describes the phenomenon under study. For this, the inductive-deductive methods will be applied, which will allow logical conclusions to be obtained by reviewing failures in relation to the investigation. As a result of the investigation, it is intended to identify the shortcomings in the argumentation of judgment 1158-17-EP/21.

Keywords: judicial decisions, error of law, injustice of results, sentence, legal certainty.