The Limits of Judicial Review of Political Issues in Latin America: A Comparative Study; [Os limites do controle judicial sobre questões políticas na América Latina: um estudo comparativo]

López de Castilla C.S.; Mardon Zárate G.M. · Revista Oficial del Poder Judicial (2026) · DOI: 10.35292/ropj.v18i25.1228

Resumen

This article aims to present the different approaches adopted by the highest constitutional courts in Latin America regarding the judicial review of political acts. Within a constitutional state governed by the rule of law, a crucial implication is that every act of public authority may be subject to judicial review in order to address any action contrary to the Constitution. However, determining the extent to which discretionary decisions of political bodies are justiciable remains problematic. In this regard, concepts such as political questions and interna corporis acta have been used to limit the intervention of constitutional courts in relation to such acts. Following a review of the criteria adopted by various high courts in Latin America concerning the review of discretionary acts of a political nature, it becomes evident that there is no uniform standard regarding the justiciability of such acts. Indeed, matters that are considered a political question in one country may be regarded as fully justiciable acts in another. Accordingly, political acts or decisions—such as pardons, declarations of a state of emergency, and the internal organization of legislative chambers, among others—are subject to differing assessments regarding their justiciability. In this context, the article analyzes the criteria adopted in different countries and examines whether convergent or divergent elements exist that may help define the limits of judicial review over such acts.

Instituciones: Universidad de Lima