Historical constitutional approximations of presidential objection in Colombia (1810-1886)

Abstract

There have been many government ways that have been developed throughout history searching to establish what it would be considered the most convenient form of association in order to govern people’s destinations, who were recently liberated and who sought to govern in favor of all its inhabitants.

In any of the ways in which the new states were organized, they claim the idea of separation of powers and their complementarity, which is why, since the first constitutions, the figure of the presidential objection was based on the shared function between the executive and the legislative power, through laws creation. In fact, it is common to find their praxis in a constant alloy between these concepts.

By writing this article, it was taken into account the almost 35 constitutions that warped our constitutional history, in which, when carrying out an exploration of a detailed and complete character, we can appreciate the swing in the treatment that heroes of homeland, followed by the local constitutionalist, imparted to the figure of the presidential objection. According to what is extracted, it was of significant importance the balance -or what Montesquieu would call ‘the checks and balances’ between the legislative power and the executive power. Without ignoring that in certain periods of history, the judicial power had a leading role for the formation and subsequent expedition, sanction, promulgation, execution or simply the sealing. Similar terms used in the past to signify the implementation of law and its binding nature.

It is striking how, even when legal battles were fought among the new states, and the form of operation of the presidential objection was adjusted, passing its action by the people as the first constituent, succeeded in turn by the executive power. Nevertheless, it rests once more on the constituent power, which, by giving up its sovereignty to its representatives, arranged through the constitutional texts to adopt the decision to share the task of formation and enforcement of the laws between the legislative power -where per excellence takes place the legal debate- and the executive power, in charge of giving its approval. In the event that the latter had a different opinion, it was empowered in all Constitutions to oppose the execution of the law, invoking reasons of inconvenience, serious public or unconstitutional prejudice, circumstances in which a range of possibilities arose in order to give course law.