Alcances del concepto funcionario público en el Perú
No Thumbnail Available
Date
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú
Acceso al texto completo solo para la Comunidad PUCP
Abstract
El concepto de funcionario público en el Perú, así como en Latinoamérica y
Europa, ha generado un debate complejo debido a las diversas interpretaciones
y la falta de consenso sobre quién debe ser considerado como tal. En el caso
peruano, la jurisprudencia ha mostrado diferencias significativas entre la Corte
Suprema y el Tribunal Constitucional sobre el alcance de esta figura, lo que ha
resultado en una aplicación variable de la ley. Mientras que la Corte Suprema ha
adoptado una visión más restrictiva, limitando la categoría a los funcionarios con
cargos de carrera administrativa, el Tribunal Constitucional ha ampliado la
definición para incluir a aquellos que ejercen funciones dentro del aparato estatal,
independientemente de su vínculo contractual. Estas diferencias reflejan la
ambigüedad en las normativas y la necesidad de un marco jurídico más claro.
Los instrumentos normativos empleados incluyen la Constitución Política del
Perú, el Código Penal, y diversas sentencias tanto del Tribunal Constitucional
como de la Corte Suprema. Estos instrumentos han sido fundamentales para
abordar la cuestión de quiénes deben ser considerados funcionarios públicos,
pero las interpretaciones dispares siguen generando incertidumbre.
Una propuesta para resolver esta controversia es la emisión de un Acuerdo
Plenario por parte de la Corte Suprema. Este acuerdo podría unificar los criterios
y clarificar el concepto de funcionario público, considerando tanto la evolución de
la administración pública como las nuevas modalidades de contratación.
The concept of public servant in Peru, as well as in Latin America and Europe, has generated a complex debate due to the various interpretations and lack of consensus on who should be considered as such. In the Peruvian case, jurisprudence has shown significant differences between the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court regarding the scope of this figure, resulting in variable application of the law. While the Supreme Court has adopted a more restrictive view, limiting the category to those with career administrative positions, the Constitutional Court has broadened the definition to include those who perform functions within the state apparatus, regardless of their contractual relationship. These differences reflect the ambiguity in the regulations and the need for a clearer legal framework. The normative instruments employed include the Political Constitution of Peru, the Penal Code, and various rulings from both the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court. These instruments have been essential in addressing the issue of who should be considered a public servant, but the disparate interpretations continue to generate uncertainty. One proposal to resolve this controversy is the issuance of a Plenary Agreement by the Supreme Court. This agreement could unify the criteria and clarify the concept of a public servant, considering both the evolution of public administration and the new modalities of contracting.
The concept of public servant in Peru, as well as in Latin America and Europe, has generated a complex debate due to the various interpretations and lack of consensus on who should be considered as such. In the Peruvian case, jurisprudence has shown significant differences between the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court regarding the scope of this figure, resulting in variable application of the law. While the Supreme Court has adopted a more restrictive view, limiting the category to those with career administrative positions, the Constitutional Court has broadened the definition to include those who perform functions within the state apparatus, regardless of their contractual relationship. These differences reflect the ambiguity in the regulations and the need for a clearer legal framework. The normative instruments employed include the Political Constitution of Peru, the Penal Code, and various rulings from both the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court. These instruments have been essential in addressing the issue of who should be considered a public servant, but the disparate interpretations continue to generate uncertainty. One proposal to resolve this controversy is the issuance of a Plenary Agreement by the Supreme Court. This agreement could unify the criteria and clarify the concept of a public servant, considering both the evolution of public administration and the new modalities of contracting.
Description
Keywords
Funcionarios públicos--Perú, Administración pública--Perú, Delitos de los funcionarios--Perú, Corrupción--Perú
Citation
Collections
Endorsement
Review
Supplemented By
Referenced By
Creative Commons license
Except where otherwised noted, this item's license is described as info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess