The controversy surrounding what type of law, whether statutory or ordinary, is the health reform project presented by the national government is not a minor discussion, since the speed and depth with which it is carried out depends on one or the other. this initiative is processed.
Although President Gustavo Petro presented the project as an ordinary law, 25 congressmen raised an alert, considering that it is a statutory law.
What is the difference? The origin of the debate is that the statutory laws are those that regulate the fundamental rights and duties of people and the procedures and resources for their protection; For this reason, since it is an initiative that will redefine the health system, there are those who consider that the reform in question is of this category.
However, it is clear that the government defends the ordinary law character of the reform due to the ease it would have to obtain its approval, since this type of laws are approved by a simple majority, while the statutory ones require an absolute majority, that is, the half plus 1 of the votes, which implies that there is more debate to try to convince more congressmen.
To this is added that the statutory laws must be reviewed by the Constitutional Court, which opens the possibility that the high court declares it unenforceable.
What is the rush of the national government in approving the reforms? If the initiatives are so good, why the desire to reduce and sometimes prevent the debate?
The changes proposed by the government of President Petro are not a small thing, they are structural and, therefore, require in-depth analysis.
A change in the career can lead the Congress of the Republic, with a government majority, to blindly approve the health reform and the reforms to come, as happened with the tax reform. Is this responsible to the country?
Comments