January 9, 2008 in General
Fart motion
Mr President of the Bureau, Dear Colleagues.
I begin this order giving my deep gratitude to the Chairmen of the Committees on Legal Affairs and Economy, which took over recent weeks openness and respect necessary for giving us a space that allows us to expose an issue that was never before defended in this honorable council, and could be second importance to the issues citizens, but nevertheless is undermining the ability to act freely and with equal treatment of entities that we believe is important to strengthen our country because engines mean that encourage the building of relationships healthy and values such as evangelical churches among other religious congregations.
This is the case. President to about ordinances that we passed this afternoon to ratify a part of them is putting in its articles relating to inafectable an explicit mention that sets out in the exclusive benefit only to entities belonging to the Catholic Church, generating an act totally discriminatory compared with different entities confession to the Catholic and therefore violates the constitutional principle that “No one should be discriminated against because of their religion, established in the second article of our constitution”.
The first question that I have received in this regard is whether this Council is the forum where we should see an item that violates constitutional principles, and it would have to respond to our rules set out in its sixth art.6 which is a function of the council “Ensuring respect for the Constitution, “and this afternoon to ratify ordinances not only validated a methodology for determining tax validated but also a regulatory body that makes us co-publishers of an existing rule, which ultimately could end up being unconstitutional.
A question concerning whether this pronouncement violates our so-called municipal autonomy, then it will have to refer to the file 041-2004 Constitutional Court which said that “The Municipalities can not exercise their power arbitrarily tax, but said that constitutional recognition is entitled always to be found within the legal framework that the Constitution enshrines. ” It is worth noting, said the same court that the phrase “within the limits prescribed by law” must be understood so that freedom that the Constitution has given to the legislature for determining the municipal tax authority is, in turn, limited the Constitution where it has established under penalty of disability, that is, when it comes to preserving constitutionally guaranteed property. This, in doctrine, is what is known as inherent limits (limits to the limits). There is then a limit to establish ordinances district that has been overtaken by certain districts of the province of Lima.
This is why we found mainly in four specific ordinances of the district of San Borja, Lynx and San Miguel that there is a regulatory body in its discriminatory attitude that we see in this council and that certainly will not support, announcing that we will take actions for legal purposes of establishing the unconstitutionality of the same.
Taking into account the above. Chairman and saving in turn very much welcome the commitment of the Presidents of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Legal Affairs the power to build a legal instrument that emerges from council to limit these rules not only affect communities “not Catholic” but above all do our country an area of greater respect for our differences, in this case, creed, and therein lies the importance of this point, therefore, a group of aldermen have proposed a motion of appeal to the districts so that there are no elements discriminatory in their ordinances about it and ask the support of all democratic aldermen training and call centers. Mr. President pass the agenda.
Thank you very much.
