Edge Rewrite
everything Source code View original
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a408d0fbec3d1709

Jump to content

Constitutional Court of Chile

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Constitutional Court of Chile
Tribunal Constitucional de Chile
Map
Interactive map of Constitutional Court of Chile
Established23 January 1970 (original); reinstated 1981
Dissolved10 November 1973 (original tribunal)
Jurisdiction Chile
LocationHuérfanos 1234, Santiago
Authorised byConstitution of Chile
Judge term length9 years, nonrenewable
Number of positions10 titular members, 2 substitutes
Websitewww.tribunalconstitucional.cl
President
CurrentlyMaría Pía Silva Gallinato
SinceJuly 2026

The Constitutional Court of Chile (Spanish: Tribunal Constitucional de Chile, abbreviated TC) is Chile's constitutional tribunal. It is an autonomous body that is not part of the judicial branch and is functionally independent of the National Congress, the President of the Republic, and the ordinary courts. Its principal task is to review the constitutionality of laws, decrees, and other government actions, and it also rules on matters such as the removal of members of Congress, the banning of political organizations that seriously violate the constitutional order, and disputes over the calling of plebiscites.

The Court was first established in 1970 as an amendment to the 1925 Constitution; it was dissolved after the 1973 coup d'état and was reinstated, with a substantially different design, under the 1980 Constitution. Since a 2005 constitutional reform, it has been composed of ten ministers appointed for staggered nine-year terms by the President of the Republic, the Supreme Court, the Senate, and the Chamber of Deputies. The Court is headquartered in the former Caja de Crédito Hipotecario building at 1234 Huérfanos Street in downtown Santiago.

History

[edit]

Original tribunal (1970–1973)

[edit]

The Constitutional Court was created by a constitutional reform to the 1925 Constitution enacted on 23 January 1970, and signed into law by President Eduardo Frei Montalva.[1][2] According to legal scholar Sergio Verdugo, the reform was in part the product of a miscalculated bet by its drafters, who expected a different candidate to win the presidency that year; once in operation, the tribunal generally worked in favor of the unexpectedly elected president, Salvador Allende, and its influence waned when it declined to intervene in the constitutional crisis that preceded the 1973 coup.[3] Between 1971 and 1973, the tribunal sat on the mezzanine of the building of the Caja Autónoma de Amortización, on the west side of Bandera Street in Santiago.[4]

The tribunal was dissolved by decree-law No. 119, issued on 10 November 1973, by the military junta that had seized power that September.[4]

Reinstatement under the 1980 Constitution

[edit]

The 1980 Constitution reinstated the Court. Until 2005, some of its members were appointed by the National Security Council, a civil-military body. A constitutional reform that year substantially changed the Court's composition and powers, increasing its membership from seven to ten justices and giving the President of the Republic, the Supreme Court, the Senate, and the Chamber of Deputies a greater role in their appointment.

Seat

[edit]
Entrance to the Court's headquarters on Huérfanos Street, guarded by the Gendarmerie of Chile

From 1981 the Court sat in a room on the third floor of the former National Congress building; in 1989 it moved to the sixth floor of a building on Morandé Street. Between December 2000 and 2012 it occupied the Casa de Velasco, and it then moved temporarily to a corporate building on Avenida Apoquindo in the Las Condes commune while its permanent headquarters was prepared.[5][6] Since 2015 the Court has been headquartered in the former Caja de Crédito Hipotecario building at 1234 Huérfanos Street, in the Santiago commune.[7][8]

Jurisdiction and functions

[edit]

According to the Chilean constitution, the Court's principal function is to rule on whether laws are unconstitutional, that is, whether they conflict with constitutionally established rights and freedoms. This applies not only to legislative acts but also to judicial rules (autoacordados), presidential decrees with the force of law, and ordinary decrees that the Comptroller General has objected to as unconstitutional.

The Court's other principal functions include:

  • exercising mandatory, preventive review of interpretive laws, constitutional organic laws, and treaty provisions covering matters proper to organic laws, before their promulgation;
  • ruling on the constitutionality of a legal provision as applied in a specific judicial or administrative proceeding (inaplicabilidad), and, separately, declaring such a provision unconstitutional outright once it has been found inapplicable;
  • resolving constitutional questions raised during the passage of bills, constitutional reforms, or international treaties;
  • ruling on the constitutionality of decrees with the force of law and of other supreme decrees, at the request of the President;
  • ruling on complaints that the President has failed to promulgate a law or has promulgated a text different from the one constitutionally required;
  • declaring the unconstitutionality of organizations, movements, or political parties that seriously undermine the constitutional order, and the personal responsibility of those involved;
  • resolving jurisdictional disputes between political or administrative authorities and the courts;
  • ruling on questions of eligibility, incompatibility, and removal affecting cabinet ministers and members of Congress; and
  • informing the Senate on the physical or mental incapacity of the President or President-elect, and on the validity of a presidential resignation.

The Court can also convene, or advise on the constitutionality of, national plebiscites, at the request of the Senate or Chamber of Deputies.

Organization

[edit]

Composition and appointment

[edit]

The Constitutional Court is composed of ten members, called ministers:

  • 3 appointed by the President of the Republic;
  • 3 elected by the Supreme Court in a secret vote;
  • 2 elected by the Senate by a two-thirds majority of sitting senators; and
  • 2 proposed by the Chamber of Deputies by a two-thirds majority and confirmed by the Senate by the same margin.

Members serve nine-year terms, staggered so that roughly a third of the Court is renewed every three years, and they cannot be reappointed. Candidates must have practiced law for at least 15 years, have distinguished themselves in professional, academic, or public life, and have no legal disqualification from serving as a judge; ministers must retire at age 75 and cannot simultaneously hold the office of deputy or senator.[9]

Before the 2005 reform, the Court had only seven members: three ministers chosen by the Supreme Court, one lawyer designated by the President, one lawyer chosen by the Senate, and two lawyers chosen by the National Security Council.

Plenary, chambers, and the casting vote

[edit]

The Court can sit as a full plenary (Pleno) or split into two chambers (Salas). Because it has an even number of members, tied votes are possible; in that case, the Court's president casts a deciding, or "dirimente," vote that counts twice. Some Chilean constitutional scholars, including Humberto Nogueira Alcalá, have argued that constitutional tribunals should generally have an odd number of members precisely to avoid such deadlocks, a criticism raised again in 2026 after the Court's president cast the deciding vote in three separate provisions of the "Escuelas Protegidas" school-safety bill.[10][11]

Substitute ministers

[edit]

If the Court cannot reach the required quorum because a titular minister is unable to sit, substitute ministers (suplentes de ministro) may replace ministers and sit in the Plenary or chambers. Two substitute ministers are appointed every three years by the President of the Republic, with the agreement of two-thirds of the Senate, from a list of seven candidates proposed by the Constitutional Court following a public competition based on objective, public, transparent and non-discriminatory criteria. Substitute ministers are assigned to the Plenary or chambers according to an order of precedence established by public lottery. They have the same prohibitions, obligations and grounds for disqualification as titular ministers, and must devote at least half a working day to their duties; their monthly remuneration is 50% of that of a titular minister. The system was established by Law No. 20,381 of 28 October 2009, which replaced the previous system of abogados integrantes ("substitute attorneys"). Under that system, the Court elected its abogados integrantes by secret ballot for three-year terms.[12]

Current composition

[edit]

As of September 2026, the Court's ten titular ministers are:[9]

NameAppointed byTerm beganTerm endsNotes
Miguel Ángel Fernández GonzálezPresident of the Republic (Sebastián Piñera)30 July 201830 July 2027
María Pía Silva GallinatoSupreme Court3 July 20183 July 2027President of the Court since July 2026
Daniela Marzi MuñozPresident of the Republic (Gabriel Boric)9 May 20229 May 2031President of the Court, 2024–2026
Nancy Yáñez FuenzalidaPresident of the Republic (Gabriel Boric)9 May 20229 May 2031President of the Court, 2022–2024
Raúl Mera MuñozSupreme Court30 August 202330 August 2030Chosen by public competition to complete the term of the late minister Rodrigo Pica Flores
Héctor Mery RomeroSenate18 January 202418 January 2033
Catalina Lagos TschorneSenate18 January 202418 January 2033Expected to become President of the Court in 2027
Marcela Peredo RojasChamber of Deputies18 January 202418 January 2033
Alejandra Precht RorrisChamber of Deputies25 January 202425 January 2033
Mario Gómez MontoyaSupreme Court8 November 202428 July 2029

María Pía Silva Gallinato was sworn in as President of the Court on 10 July 2026, succeeding Daniela Marzi Muñoz, who had led the Court since 2024; Silva is expected to serve a one-year term before being succeeded by Catalina Lagos Tschorne.[13][14]

Presidents of the Court

[edit]
NamePeriod
Enrique Silva Cimma1971–1973
Israel Bórquez Montero1981–1985
José María Eyzaguirre Echeverría1985–1989
Luis Maldonado Boggiano1989–1991
Marcos Aburto Ochoa1991–1995
Manuel Jiménez Bulnes1995–1997
Osvaldo Faúndez Vallejos1997–2001
José Luis Cea Egaña2005–2007
Juan Colombo Campbell2007–2009
Marcelo Venegas Palacios2009–2011
Raúl Bertelsen Repetto2011–2013
Marisol Peña Torres2013–2014
Carlos Carmona Santander2014–2017
Iván Aróstica Maldonado2017–2019
María Luisa Brahm Barril2019–2021
Juan José Romero Guzmán2021–2022
Nancy Yáñez Fuenzalida2022–2024
Daniela Marzi Muñoz2024–2026
María Pía Silva Gallinato2026–present

Notable rulings

[edit]

Election Certification Tribunal (1985)

[edit]

In reviewing the draft Organic Constitutional Law on the Election Certification Tribunal (Tricel), the Court held, by a narrow 4–3 majority, that the electoral tribunal had to be functioning before the 1988 plebiscite rather than only from the 1989 parliamentary elections. The Court relied on a systematic interpretation of the Constitution, treating it as an organic whole rather than allowing the literal wording of a transitional provision to prevent the electoral tribunal from operating during the plebiscite. The decision therefore helped establish the institutional framework under which the 1988 plebiscite was conducted.[15][16]

Emergency contraception (2008)

[edit]

The Court struck down provisions of a 2007 Ministry of Health decree that required Chile's public health system to make certain forms of hormonal emergency contraception available, including the "morning-after pill." The majority held that the challenged provisions violated the constitutional protection of the right to life. Because the ruling was issued through the Court's abstract constitutional review procedure, it applied generally rather than only to the parties in a particular case.[17]

Isapre risk-factor tables (2010)

[edit]

Chilean Isapres used legally authorized "risk-factor tables" to calculate how much each member had to pay for health insurance. The tables allowed premiums to vary according to factors such as the insured person's age and sex, meaning that older people could be charged substantially more than younger people. After earlier cases had found the application of these rules unconstitutional, the Constitutional Court reviewed the relevant provision itself and declared it unconstitutional. The Court held that the system violated the constitutional guarantee of equality and was incompatible with the protection of the right to health. The ruling became a major precedent in subsequent challenges to Isapre pricing practices.[18][19]

Union monopoly in collective bargaining (2016)

[edit]

The Court declared unconstitutional provisions of the labor reform that established exclusive union representation for collective bargaining. It held that the constitutional right to collective bargaining belonged to workers individually and that making union membership a condition for exercising that right infringed the Constitution. The decision also invalidated related provisions concerning collective bargaining by groups of non-unionized workers.[20][21]

Three-causal abortion law (2017)

[edit]

The Court reviewed the bill that became Law No. 21.030, which decriminalized abortion in three circumstances: danger to the life of the woman, a pregnancy resulting from rape, and a pregnancy involving a lethal fetal condition. The Court rejected the principal challenge to the decriminalization scheme, allowing the legislation to proceed, but upheld constitutional objections concerning institutional conscientious objection, extending that protection beyond individual health professionals to certain institutions. The ruling was one of the Court's most consequential decisions concerning reproductive rights, the constitutional protection of the unborn, and freedom of conscience and religion.[22]

Second 10% pension withdrawal (2020)

[edit]

The Court accepted the President's constitutional challenge to the proposed constitutional amendment authorizing a second withdrawal of up to 10% of privately managed pension savings during the COVID-19 pandemic. The judgment held that the proposal was unconstitutional, including on the basis that Congress had used a constitutional transitional provision to pursue a matter that the Court considered subject to the constitutional rules governing legislative initiative and presidential powers. The ruling was adopted after a 5–5 tie was resolved by the casting vote of the Court's president.[23][24] The decision was particularly controversial because it asserted the Court's authority to review the substance of a proposed constitutional amendment, rather than merely its procedural regularity. Academic commentary has subsequently questioned whether the Constitution actually grants the Court such substantive review power over constitutional amendments.[25][26]

Removal of Senator Isabel Allende (2025)

[edit]

In April 2025, the Court ruled 8–2 to remove Senator Isabel Allende from Congress after finding that she had breached Article 60 of the Constitution, which bars sitting members of Congress from entering into contracts with the state, in connection with a failed sale of a family property—the former home of her father, President Salvador Allende—to the state.[27][28] The ruling ended Allende's more than three decades in Congress and drew criticism from government officials, who called it a troubling precedent, while other political figures defended the Court's independence from partisan pressure.[27][29]

"Escuelas Protegidas" ruling (2026)

[edit]

In June 2026, ruling on requirements filed by opposition members of Congress, the Court declared four provisions of the government's "Escuelas Protegidas" ("Protected Schools") school-safety bill unconstitutional, including a provision that would have allowed police to search students' backpacks without judicial authorization and provisions that would have stripped subsidized university tuition ("gratuidad") from students convicted of violence-related crimes, on the grounds that they violated the constitutional right to equal treatment and the right to education.[30][31] Three of the four provisions were struck down only after the Court's then-president, Daniela Marzi, cast a deciding vote to break a 5–5 tie among the ministers.[10] The bill, which the government had introduced after a fatal attack on a school employee in Calama, was otherwise upheld and returned to the executive for promulgation without the invalidated provisions.[31][32]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ↑ "Ley 17284: Modifica la Constitución Política del Estado" (in Spanish). Biblioteca del Congreso Nacional de Chile (LeyChile). 23 January 1970. Retrieved 28 November 2015.
  2. ↑ "Caso Frei Montalva: las claves de la causa ante la Corte de Santiago". La Tercera (in Spanish). Retrieved 11 September 2026.
  3. ↑ Verdugo, Sergio (2020). "El auge y caída del Tribunal Constitucional de 1970: la ironía de una predicción electoral equivocada". Revista de Derecho UDD (in Spanish) (42). Retrieved 11 September 2026.
  4. 1 2 "Tribunal Constitucional de Chile: Historia y Trayectoria (1971–2006)" (PDF) (in Spanish). Tribunal Constitucional de Chile. 2006. Retrieved 11 November 2024.
  5. ↑ "Polémica provoca traslado del Tribunal Constitucional al sector oriente de Santiago". La Tercera (in Spanish). 27 May 2011. Retrieved 21 November 2012.
  6. ↑ "Tribunal Constitucional empieza su mudanza a edificio de Las Condes". Qué Pasa (in Spanish). 17 June 2012. Retrieved 21 November 2012.
  7. ↑ "Nueva sede del Tribunal Constitucional" (in Spanish). Tribunal Constitucional de Chile. Retrieved 11 September 2026.
  8. ↑ "Términos de Referencia para proceso de precalificación "Habilitación de la Torre del Edificio Institucional - Tribunal Constitucional"" (PDF) (in Spanish). Tribunal Constitucional de Chile. 29 May 2015. Retrieved 10 June 2016.
  9. 1 2 "Quiénes son los integrantes del Tribunal Constitucional, quién los designó y cuándo termina su periodo". Emol (in Spanish). 7 July 2026. Retrieved 11 September 2026.
  10. 1 2 Sallaberry, J.P. (7 July 2026). "Perfil: Daniela Marzi, el "voto dirimente" del TC contra Escuelas Protegidas (y los cuestionamientos a ese mecanismo)". Ex-Ante (in Spanish). Retrieved 11 September 2026.
  11. ↑ Toro, Daniela (8 July 2026). "Tribunales constitucionales en el mundo: Cuántos miembros tienen y cómo resuelven los empates". Emol (in Spanish). Retrieved 11 September 2026.
  12. ↑ "Law No. 20,381, amending Law No. 17,997, Organic Constitutional Law of the Constitutional Court". Biblioteca del Congreso Nacional de Chile (in Spanish). 28 October 2009. Retrieved 11 September 2026.
  13. ↑ "Quién es la nueva presidenta del Tribunal Constitucional y por qué podría dar mayores garantías al oficialismo". The Clinic (in Spanish). 13 July 2026. Retrieved 11 September 2026.
  14. ↑ Gallardo Contreras, María Alejandra (13 July 2026). "María Pía Silva asume la presidencia del Tribunal Constitucional: su trayectoria y el escenario que enfrentará". Pauta (in Spanish). Retrieved 11 September 2026.
  15. ↑ Correa, Carla (25 September 2025). "TRIBUNAL CONSTITUCIONAL PARTICIPÓ EN CONVERSATORIO SOBRE SENTENCIA QUE PERMITIÓ CONTAR CON UN TRICEL PARA PLEBISCITO DE 1988". Tribunal Constitucional Chile (in Spanish). Retrieved 11 September 2026.
  16. ↑ Navarro Beltrán, Enrique (2011). El control de constitucionalidad de las leyes en Chile (1811-2011) (PDF). Cuadernos del Tribunal Constitucional. Tribunal Constitucional de Chile.
  17. ↑ "Sentencia Rol N.º 740-07-CDS". Biblioteca del Congreso Nacional de Chile. Tribunal Constitucional de Chile. 18 April 2008.
  18. ↑ Marshall Barberán, Pablo (December 2010). "TABLA DE FACTORES DE LA LEY DE ISAPRES Y DERECHOS FUNDAMENTALES (TRIBUNAL CONSTITUCIONAL)". Revista de derecho (Valdivia). 23 (2). Universidad Austral de Chile. Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Sociales: 247–264. doi:10.4067/S0718-09502010000200013. ISSN 0718-0950.
  19. ↑ Nogueira Alcalá, Humberto (2010). "LA PROTECCIÓN DE LOS DERECHOS SOCIALES COMO DERECHOS FUNDAMENTALES DE EFICACIA INMEDIATA Y JUSTICIABLES EN JURISDICCIÓN CONSTITUCIONAL: LA SENTENCIA DEL TRIBUNAL CONSTITUCIONAL ROL 1710-2010-INC., DEL 6 DE AGOSTO DE 2010, SOBRE LA CONSTITUCIONALIDAD DEL ARTÍCULO 38 TER DE LA LEY DE ISAPRES". Estudios constitucionales. 8 (2). Universidad de Talca. Centro de Estudios Constitucionales: 763–798. doi:10.4067/S0718-52002010000200023. ISSN 0718-5200.
  20. ↑ "ORD. N°1163/29". DT - Normativa 3.0 (in Spanish). Retrieved 11 September 2026.
  21. ↑ "Chile, Tribunal Constitucional, sentencia No. 3016-2016, 9 de mayo de 2016". vLex. Retrieved 11 September 2026.
  22. ↑ "Oficina de Referencia Extranjera - CSJN - TRIBUNAL CONSTITUCIONAL DE CHILE". www.csjn.gov.ar. Retrieved 11 September 2026.
  23. ↑ "Sentencia Rol N.º 9797-2020". Tribunal Constitucional de Chile. 30 December 2020.
  24. ↑ Poehls, Marianne; Verdugo, Sergio (2021). "Auge y caída de la doctrina de las reformas constitucionales inconstitucionales en Chile: comentario a las sentencias del Tribunal Constitucional Roles 9797-2020 y 10.774-2021" (PDF). Anuario de Derecho Público UDP. Universidad Diego Portales: 263–290.
  25. ↑ Iñiguez Manso, Andrea (2021). "Las disposiciones transitorias como mecanismo de reforma a la Constitución de Chile: un análisis a luz de la sentencia dictada por el Tribunal Constitucional, causa rol 9797-20". Revista Jurídica Digital UANDES. 4 (2): 1. doi:10.24822/rjduandes.0402.1. ISSN 0719-7942.
  26. ↑ "Anuario de Derecho Público 2021 – Programa de Derecho Público UDP" (in Spanish). Retrieved 11 September 2026.
  27. 1 2 "Republicanos valoran decisión de Tribunal Constitucional de destituir a senadora Isabel Allende". 24 Horas (in Spanish). 3 April 2025. Retrieved 11 September 2026.
  28. ↑ "Fue por mayoría absoluta: Tribunal Constitucional da a conocer sentencia que destituye a senadora Isabel Allende". La Tercera (in Spanish). April 2025. Retrieved 11 September 2026.
  29. ↑ "Elizalde sostiene que destitución de Allende sería un "precedente muy grave" y asegura que la senadora actuó "de buena fe"". Mega Noticias (in Spanish). 4 April 2025. Retrieved 11 September 2026.
  30. ↑ "Tribunal Constitucional publica sentencia sobre Escuelas Protegidas: detalla los artículos declarados inconstitucionales". CNN Chile (in Spanish). 6 July 2026. Retrieved 11 September 2026.
  31. 1 2 "Qué quedó de la ley de Escuelas Protegidas tras el fallo adverso en el Tribunal Constitucional". Ex-Ante (in Spanish). 24 June 2026. Retrieved 11 September 2026.
  32. ↑ "Fallo del TC por Escuelas Protegidas: valoran dictamen y relevan el objetivo central de la ley" (in Spanish). Senado de Chile. 24 June 2026. Retrieved 11 September 2026.
[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Constitutional_Court_of_Chile&oldid=1374835857"