III. Legal Approach to the Amparo Process Against Invoices In this part, it is up to us to warn that not only can any standard be challenged with amparo, but that they must have certain properties to be placed in the line of sight. The enabling provision for evaluation is found in article 3 of the Constitutional Code of Procedure: although amparo against labour standards removes these unconstitutional obstacles, the message of the judgment for the injured parties remains not only between the parties to the conflict, but goes beyond a broader area; Ask the institutions to correct it immediately. Institutional inaction on change can even create functional responsibilities. In order to locate the framework of action of Amparo against standards, it is necessary to identify the types of standards that the system offers us: let us continue to distinguish between two types of Amparos that influence legal norms: Amparo against labour standards has some peculiarities that distinguish it from occupational amparo in general. therefore, its conception has been perfected by case law For the review of amparo to be viable, it is necessary that the alleged violation or threat infringes the constitutionally protected content of the claimed right or the fundamental relevance required by Article 5(1) of the Code of Constitutional Procedure in order to determine whether there has been an apparent interference with the rights claimed by it. It is also necessary to assess the relevance of the constitutional remedy of amparo in relation to legal norms in the context of the hypothetical regime established by Article 5(2) of the same Code of Constitutional Procedure: as regards the amparos applied against itself, in reality, there is no equally satisfactory and even less specific way of analysing the constitutionality of a legal norm. For this reason, the Constitutional Court has stressed that judges cannot declare inadmissible the inadmissibility of an application against a self-applicable provision on the pretext that there is another equally appropriate means of obtaining substantive protection. In this context, it is clear that, in the case of a process that constitutionally calls into question the self-applicable norm, there is no other specific procedural remedy as satisfactory as that provided for by Amparo. This article is intended to provide a practical approach to a variety of questions that companies usually ask: Is there a petition for Amparo against invoices? “Article 3.- Origin against standards-based actions As we can see, although it is not possible to file a motion for Amparo against a bill, this process will be viable once the alleged threat posed by the legislative initiative materializes into a specific threat or violation as a self-applicable norm through its incorporation into the legal system. In this case, the origin of Amparo is subject to the fact that it reinforces a fundamental right and that it is in turn a self-applicable, operating or even directly effective rule; that is, whose mere implementation affects the protected constitutional content of fundamental rights. It is precisely these standards that are at the centre of our attention. The answer is no, and for a simple reason: amparo claims do not take action against ideas.
What is an invoice? An idea. These are rules of self-application whose applicability, once in force, is immediate and unconditional. It should be noted that Amparo claims against hetero-application standards are inadmissible. And as a result, his project of independent and freely conceived life is cut off from the outside by an unreasonable decision contrary to the constitutional order (f. 36,1)”. When a labour law is called into question by the Amparo process, it has a disproportionate effect, as it not only addresses the specific problems of the conflict, but also weakens the foundations of its application and validity. If a judge of the Anglo-Saxon jurisdiction of the United States conducts a diffuse examination of the constitutionality of a rule, it will be terminated and, if it is not repealed, will starve to death. It is an application whose application is immediate and unconditional as soon as it enters into force. These are rules that do not require any act of development or execution to deploy their effects. The Constitutional Court also qualifies self-applicable norms as “norm – action”, with a decree, operational or of immediate effect. This provision constitutes a clear and serious violation of constitutional norms prohibiting discrimination against women. Article 2, paragraph 2, of the Constitution provides: “Everyone has the right to: (…) On equality before the law.
No one shall be discriminated against on the basis of origin, race, sex, language, religion, ideology, economic status or any other character. In accordance with Article 26(1). Similarly, a more specific rule, article 23, states: “Work in its various forms shall be given priority attention by the State, which shall protect in particular the mother, the minor and the disabled person who works”. In order to carry out a retrospective analysis of occupational health and safety and the effects it generates, it is possible to recall the effects caused by standards in the work process or in substantive labour law, since both may deserve constitutional protection, autonomously or jointly. The Constitutional Court has stated that the absence of one of these budgets would demonstrate that there is no suitable alternative to Amparo, so that the constitutional way of deciding on the merits is approved. It appears that Amparo is not generally applicable to legal norms, but is limited to certain characteristics of legal norms, so that the effects of the direct complaint on the person concerned by the employment relationship must be analysed beforehand. It is necessary to assess whether the contested rule itself is applicable, a factor which will be relevant only for the assessment of the admissibility of Amparo. Thus, the review of the nature of the provision is a procedural condition, but not an unconstitutionality. As we can see, the origin of an Amparo claim against a self-applicable norm depends on the situation described above: (i) whether the normative act itself violates a fundamental right; or (ii) where there is a definite and imminent risk of a violation of a fundamental right as a result of the application of the rule. In a situation of normality, it would not be procedurally valid for the TC to assume jurisdiction over an ordinary procedure, since it is prohibited under Article 5, paragraph 3, of the Code of Constitutional Procedure, which declares amparo inadmissible if: “The injured party has already had recourse to another judicial procedure to seek protection under his constitutional law”.
That is, the Amparo cannot be considered a lane parallel to the ordinary road, therefore the TC decided as an exception to the rule. What has been developed so far applies to all the rules that have been incorporated into the legal system. However, can we challenge a bill? Does a bill threaten or violate fundamental rights? Article 200, paragraph 2, of the Political Constitution of the State, gives us the characteristics of the Amparo process, which from the top of the law will be a necessary norm to be analyzed: it should be a normal situation that anyone who feels violated by a labour law first resorts to the ordinary process, and only if he does not find a means satisfactory to his interests. could resort to the constitutional route (if the law is covered by the Constitution): “To claim otherwise would be to sign that only Amparo is the only way to protect constitutional rights, despite the fact that it is also possible to achieve the same result through other judicial proceedings” (STC 0206-2005-PA/TC, f. 5). Read also: Case. Lab. 14066-2015, Arequipa: Remuneration of the employee replaced by amparo This classification was developed by the judgment of lapse in case No. 00051-2011-PA/TC, et seq. Paragraphs 5 to 9, distinguishing between the two cases in AMPARO v. standards and AMPARO against acts based on the application of a standard.