To overcome this fragmentation, I propose the incorporation of constitutional and administrative specialties within a unified jurisdiction, which would no longer be ordinary as opposed to contentious-administrative. A single specialty should know all nullities, as well as popular actions, protection and compliance: the general and particular interest of constitutional roots. Contractual and direct reparation matters, traditionally developed by civil and commercial doctrine, would be handled by judges in these specialties, eliminating the artificial barriers that have been built around the state contract and the non-contractual liability of the State. This structural reform would not only facilitate the resolution of conflicts under a unified legal framework, but would also put an end to the division of the Judiciary, which with the extraordinary powers that the Constitution grants to the president, contributes to the imbalance in the distribution of power in Colombia.
The segmentation of the Judicial Power into the Constitutional Court, the Council of State and the Supreme Court has historically favored a concentration of powers in the Legislative and, above all, the Executive branches. A unified high court with different specialties would promote coherence in the interpretation and application of the law, strengthening the judicial counterweight against the other branches of power. This is crucial to materialize the rights enshrined in our legal system, through judges who, exercising their power with conviction, can guarantee justice.
It is true that we are facing the crisis of the separation of powers, but this should not necessarily be interpreted as its end. The analysis of the functioning of power structures serves to control, rationalize and democratize it. This vision implies an organizational facet, but for this reason it is still substantial.
The proposal to focus the judicial system on the search for truth, revitalizing trials of conscience in the criminal sphere and promoting the implementation of procedures with judges and juries for other matters, points towards a more participatory and democratic justice. In the civil and administrative context, where the jurisdiction of judges is defined mainly by the economic value of the claims, it is crucial to recognize that not all conflicts require an extended trial, with all its stages and instances. However, those that deserve the full attention of the Jurisdiction, not only because of their economic relevance, deserve a process that reflects the democratic principle through the inclusion of juries. The participation of ordinary citizens in verdicts would bring a more humane and sensitive perspective to dispute resolution, contrasting with a judicial practice where, at times, efficiency and statistics can be prioritized over substantive justice.
Juries, being composed of community members unburdened by efficiency goals or bonuses, would be less inclined to neglect the importance of evidence or active intervention in the trial. This inclusion of citizens in the judicial process not only democratizes justice, but also contributes to greater legitimacy and acceptance of judicial decisions. By adding diverse perspectives and life experiences to the analysis of cases, juries can enrich the decision-making process, ensuring that a broader range of human and social factors are considered in the resolution of civil, administrative and criminal disputes.
In conclusion, justice reform in Colombia demands a holistic approach that not only reviews procedural aspects, but also reconsiders the structural and philosophical bases of the judicial system. It is essential that these reforms are oriented towards the promotion of accessible, efficient and, above all, equitable justice, ensuring that the system truly serves all citizens, especially those in vulnerable situations. Only in this way can we move towards a more just and democratic society, where the right to justice is a tangible reality for everyone.