Abstract
Liberalism has determined the structure of the property law regime in Colombia. A genealogical analysis of the legal forms of the recent past that define and regulate property provides evidence of three key periods in the creation and consolidation of the right to property in the country.
This chapter is republished with the kind permission of the Fordham Law Review (Daniel Bonilla, Liberalism and Property in Colombia: Property as a Right and Property as a Social Function, 80 Fordham L. Rev. 1135 (2011)). (http://fordhamlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/assets/pdfs/Vol_80/Bonilla_December.pdf).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The Chilean Civil Code was also strongly influenced by Justinian’s Corpus Iuris Civilis and Alfonso X’s Seven Parts (Siete Partidas) (Mirow 2005, 304, 309).
- 2.
Constitución de la República de Colombia 1886, Article 58 (W M Gibson translation 1948).
- 3.
Legislative Act 1/36, agosto 5, 1936, DIARIO OFICIAL [D.O.] 23263, Article 10.
- 4.
L. 200/36, diciembre 30, 1936, DIARIO OFICIAL [D.O.] 23388.
- 5.
L. 9/89, enero 11, 1989, DIARIO OFICIAL [D.O.] 38650.
- 6.
Corte Suprema de Justicia [C.S.J.] [Supreme Court], Sala. Plena agosto 11, 1988, M.P: Jairo Duque Perez. Cases decided by the Colombian Supreme Court since 1988 can be found at http://www.cortesuprema.gov.co/corte/index.php/jurisprudencia/.
- 7.
The Regeneration (La Regeneración) was the Polítical movement led by Miguel Antonio Caro and Rafael Nunez that was responsible for the drafting and approval of the 1886 Constitution.
- 8.
Constitución Política de Colombia, Article 58.
- 9.
Corte Constitucional [C.C.] [Constitutional Court], agosto 18, 1999, M.P: Carlos Gaviria Díaz, Sentencia C-595/99. Cases decided by the Colombian Constitutional Court can be found at http://www.corteconstitucional.gov.co/.
- 10.
Ibid.
- 11.
Constitución Política de Colombia, Article 1.
- 12.
The Constitutional Court has decided ten cases directly related to the social function of property. See infra note 76.
- 13.
See, e.g, Rozo (2011).
- 14.
Constitución de la República de Colombia 1886, Articles 38, 53 (W M Gibson translation 1948). The 1886 Constitution does not explicitly protect Spanish. However, Spanish played a fundamental role in the conservative thought of the Regeneration. The defense of the “Spanish Soul,” to which Colombia was a part, was directly linked with the protection of Spanish. For the role played by Spanish and the “Spanish Soul” in the Regeneration, see Muñoz (2007), 141.
- 15.
Ibid. Article 1, tit XVIII.
- 16.
Ibid. tit III, Article 59.
- 17.
Constitución de la República de Colombia 1886, Articles 31–32. Articles 31 and 32 recognized the right to private property, the exceptional character of expropriation , and the obligation to compensate all expropriations. Secure property rights are a precondition of any market economy.
- 18.
Revolución en Marcha, a program of López Pumarejo’s government, consolidated what has been called the liberal hegemony in Colombia that began with the government of Enrique Olaya Herrera (1930–34). Olaya Herrera’s government signified the ascent of the Liberal Party after the conservative Republic was initiated in 1886 (Bushnell 1993, 181–185).
- 19.
See Legislative Act 1/36, agosto 5, 1936, DIARIO OFICIAL [D.O.] 23263, Article 11.
- 20.
See Ibid. Article 10.
- 21.
Código Civil (Civil Code) Article 669. The classical liberal property system is formed also by Articles 670 (ownership of intangible property) and 671 (intellectual property) (Restrepo 1991, 61–65).
- 22.
Constitución de la República de Colombia 1886, Article 31 (W M Gibson translation 1948).
- 23.
Code Napoleon, Articles 544–545. Article 582 of the Chilean Civil Code states that “Ownership (also called property) is the real right to a corporeal thing, to enjoy and dispose of it arbitrarily, not being against the law or against the rights of others” (Código Civil (Civil Code) (Chile), Article 582).
- 24.
A minor difference between the texts of the French Civil Code and Bello’s code is that in the latter the word “regulations” is replaced by the phrase “rights of others.” This difference is not particularly relevant in that one of the liberal principles justifying the two codes is that the rights of third parties limit individual rights.
- 25.
Moreover, both legal systems consider the right of property to be a natural right. Article 19 of the 1886 Polítical Constitution of Colombia states, “The authorities of the Republic are established in order to protect the lives, honor, and property of all persons residing in Colombia, and to assure the mutual observance of natural rights, and the prevention and punishment of crimes” (Constitución de la República de Colombia 1886, Article 19 [W M Gibson translation 1948]). Article 2 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789 states, “The purpose of all civil associations is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression” (Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen 1789, Article 2).
- 26.
Código Civil (Civil Code) (Chile), Article 669.
- 27.
Código Civil (Civil Code) (Chile), Article 669.
- 28.
The Constitution states:
When in the application of a law enacted for the public welfare there should result a conflict between private rights and a recognized necessity for that law, private interests shall yield to public interests. But for any expropriations which it may be necessary to make there shall be given full indemnity …
Constitución de la República de Colombia 1886, Article 31 (W M Gibson translation 1948).
- 29.
See generally Gaus (1983).
- 30.
Gonzalez describes the economic changes in Colombia beginning in 1878.
- 31.
Constitución de la República de Colombia 1886, Articles 38–41.
- 32.
The other element was language. For the Regeneration, Spanish was a fundamental component of the nation’s ethos. Yet, there is no explicit reference to Spanish in the 1886 Constitution.
- 33.
For a detailed analysis of the concept of legal monism and the values it defends, see Higuera and Maldonado (2007).
- 34.
Constitución de la República de Colombia 1886, Article 1, tit XVIII.
- 35.
Ibid. tit III.
- 36.
Constitución de la República de Colombia 1886, Articles 19, 31–35, 37, 44.
- 37.
Constitución Política de los Estados Unidos de Colombia 1863, Chap. 6.
- 38.
Ibid. Articles 1, 36.
- 39.
Ibid. Articles 15(16), 23.
- 40.
Ibid. section 2.
- 41.
The Polítical movement behind the federalist project of 1863 was called the Radical Olympus.
- 42.
In relation to this issue, however, the Constitution of 1886 tries to find a balance between conflicting values. Article 40 recognizes freedom of worship, provided it does not violate Christian morality, and Article 38 states that Catholicism, as the religion of the majority of Colombians, must be protected by the state. Nevertheless, Article 38 also indicates that Catholicism is not an official religion, stating,
The Apostolic Roman Catholic Religion is the religion of the Nation. The public authorities shall protect it and cause it to be respected as an essential element of the social order. It is understood that the Catholic Church is not and shall not be an established Church, and it shall preserve its independence.
Constitución de la República de Colombia 1886, Article 38 (W M Gibson translation 1948).
- 43.
The classical liberal property system of the Regeneration is therefore in tension with its conservative interpretation of the liberal canon on cultural and social matters, particularly with the strong influence of the church in public and private issues. In other matters such as women’s rights, however, the Civil Code fits well with the conservative Catholic values of the Regeneration.
- 44.
Napoleon noted to this effect, “My true glory is not that I have won forty battles. Waterloo will blow away the memory of these victories. What nothing can blow away, what will live eternally is my Civil Code” (Bergel 1988, 1078–1079).
- 45.
On this subject Portalis says, “Statutes are universal reason, the supreme reason based on the nature of things. Statutes are or should be the law reduced to positive rules” (Portalis 1997, 10–11).
- 46.
Constitución de la República de Colombia 1886, Article 52 (W M Gibson translation 1948).
- 47.
L. 153/87, agosto 28, 1887, DIARIO OFICIAL [D.O.] 7151 & 7152, Article 6; see Arango (2002), 150.
- 48.
Corte Suprema de Justicia [C.S.J.] [Supreme Court], Sala. Plena septiembre 14, 1889.
- 49.
Legislative Act 3/10, octubre 31, 1910, DIARIO OFICIAL [D.O.] 14131, Article 41.
- 50.
See infra notes 68–74 and accompanying text.
- 51.
Legislative Act 1/36, agosto 5, 1936, DIARIO OFICIAL [D.O.] 23263, Article 10.
- 52.
Constitución de la República de Colombia 1886 (amended 1936), Article 26 (W M Gibson translation 1948).
- 53.
Article 1 of Law 200 of 1936 states that “it is presumed that they are not vacant lots but private property, owned by private estates, understanding that such a possession consists of the economic exploitation of the land by positive acts of ownership, such as plantation or fields, the occupation with cattle and others of equal economic importance.” L. 200/36, diciembre 30, 1936, DIARIO OFICIAL [DO.] 23388, Article 1.
- 54.
See Ibid. Article 6.
- 55.
See Ibid. Article 12.
- 56.
See Ibid. Article 26.
- 57.
- 58.
See Ibid. Article 79.
- 59.
Corte Suprema de Justicia [C.S.J.] [Supreme Court], mayo 20, 1936, M.P: Eduardo Zuleta Angel (principle of good faith and the exercise of rights); Corte Suprema de Justicia [C.S.J.] [Supreme Court], diciembre 12, 1936, M.P: Eduardo Zuleta Angel (principle of good faith and contracts); Corte Suprema de Justicia [C.S.J.] [Supreme Court], febrero 21, 1938, M.P: Arturo Tapias Pilonieta (abuse of rights and expropriation ); Corte Suprema de Justicia [C.S.J.] [Supreme Court], marzo 10, 1938, M.P: Juan Francisco Mujica (social function of property and unconstitutionality of civil law); Corte Suprema de Justicia [C.S.J.] [Supreme Court], marzo 24, 1939, M.P: Ricardo Hinestrosa Daza (abuse of rights in civil law; explicitly cites Duguit); Corte Suprema de Justicia [C.S.J.] [Supreme Court], marzo 24, 1943, M.P: Anibal Cardozo Gaitdn (Law 200 of 1936, unproductive lands and the social function of property); Corte Suprema de Justicia [C.S.J.] [Supreme Court], septiembre 14, 1989, M.P: Jaime Sanin Greiffenstein (examines constitutionality of Law 9 of 1989); Corte Suprema de Justicia [C.S.J.] [Supreme Court], septiembre 28, 1989, M.P: Dídimo Páez Velandia; Corte Suprema de Justicia [C.S.J.] [Supreme Court], noviembre 9, 1989, M.P: Fabio Morón Díaz; and Corte Suprema de Justicia [C.S.J.] [Supreme Court], noviembre 9, 1989, M.P: Jairo Duque Perez.
- 60.
Corte Suprema de Justicia [C.S.J.] [Supreme Court], Sala. Plena agosto 11, 1988, M.P: Jairo Duque Perez.
- 61.
Ibid.
- 62.
Corte Suprema de Justicia [C.S.J.] [Supreme Court], september 14, 1989, M.P: Jaime Sanin Greiffenstein. This decision reinforced principles that the Court had articulated in its ruling of December 3, 1937. There, the Court said that
this criterion based on the double interest, social and individual, the laws impose new rational limits every day to the arbitrary exercise of the absolute right of ownership, as had been established in the old definition from the civil code, and thus may require the owner to cultivate them, as the title of ownership carries the implicit obligation to use one’s right to perform a social activity, in the sense of solidarity that leads to the growth of general wealth and the common good (Corte Suprema de Justicia [C.S.J.] [Supreme Court], Sala. Plena diciembre 3, 1937, M.P: Hugo Palacios Mejia).
Similarly, in the ruling of March 10, 1938, the Court said, “Under Article 31 of the Constitution, which assigns property a social function, private property has been relativized among us. In this sense it is no longer an absolute right, i.e., legally unassailable, as originally consigned in our civil code” (Corte Suprema de Justicia [C.S.J.] [Supreme Court], marzo 10, 1938, M.P: Ricardo Hinestrosa Daza).
- 63.
Corte Suprema de Justicia [C.S.J.] [Supreme Court], septiembre 14, 1989, M.P: Jaime Sanin Greiffenstein.
- 64.
In the debate of November 20, 1936, Senator Rodriguez Moya affirmed:
The term “social function of property,” rather than being interpreted as understood by liberalism, in the sense that the exercise of private ownership implies social burdens, more or less substantial, without being eliminated, is understood by the supporters of the project as the disappearance of the right, and substitution with a duty, in whose compliance the citizen has the protection of state powers, to the extent that it fulfills it, according to outdated and impractical theory, in the democracy of Auguste [Comte] and Léon Duguit (Martinez 1939, 226).
Although Senator Rodriguez Moya was part of the Liberal Party, he decided to vote against the bill because it violated the values of classical liberalism. (Martinez 1939, 265–266).
- 65.
Opposition to the project on the part of the conservative party was clear. Esteban Jaramillo, former Minister of Finance, affirmed: “[With the reform] an attack was carried out on religion, the family, against honor, against property and against the dearest affections born of man … the fundamentals of the country’s secular organization … have been threatened by destructive revolutionary tendencies” (Londono 1981).
- 66.
Law 9 was a key tool for developing the Colombian state’s commitments, acquired in 1936, to the principles of distributive justice and solidarity. Indeed, after the interventionist state was made constitutional in 1936, the legislature issued a number of legal norms that gave the state power to intervene in areas as diverse as telecommunications, the family, and the export and import of goods and services. However, Law 9 is of particular importance in this process in that it gives the state powers to intervene in a key area for any state committed to the material equality of its citizens: the ownership of urban land.
- 67.
The government of López Pumarejo was the second government of the period known in Colombia as the liberal hegemony (1930–46). The first was that of Olaya Herrera (1930–34) (Bushnell 1993, 181–200).
- 68.
Law 388 of 1997 amended Law 9 of 1989. L. 388/97, julio 24, 1997, DIARIO OFICIAL [D.O.] 43091. Nevertheless, these changes did not affect the core elements of the social function of the right to property as articulated in Law 9.
- 69.
Constitución Política de Colombia, Article 58.
- 70.
Ibid.
- 71.
The proposal presented by Jesús Pérez González-Rubio to the National Constituent Assembly illustrates the continuity between the two property systems:
Free enterprise has its foundation in private property. It is the cornerstone of the economy. Hence the previous Constitution and the new one guarantee it as a right; but it can only be justified as such in the mind of the owner to the extent that it fulfills a social function . It is an idea expressed with the following phrase from 1936 and now repeated: “Property is a social function that implies obligations” (Gaceta Constitucional No. 113, 29).
- 72.
Article 58 of the Constitution of 1991 indicates,
Private property and the other rights acquired in accordance with the civil laws are guaranteed, which cannot be ignored or infringed by subsequent laws. When the application of a law passed on account of public utility or social interest should result in a conflict between the rights of persons and the necessity recognized [by the law], the private interest must concede to the public or social interest.
Property is a social function that implies obligations. As such, an ecological function is inherent to it.
The State will protect and promote associative and collective [solidarias] forms of ownership.
For reasons of public utility or social interest defined by the legislator, there may be expropriation by means of a judicial sentence and prior indemnification. The latter will be determined in consultation with the interests of the community and the affected [party]. In the cases determined by the legislator, this expropriation may be pursued by administrative means, subject to subsequent contentious administrative action, including with respect to price.
Constitución Política de Colombia, Article 58 (A I Vellvé Torras & J J Ruchti translation, 1991).
- 73.
Ibid. Article 1. Article 2 of the Constitution states, “The essential goals of the State are: to serve the community, to promote the general prosperity, and guarantee the effectiveness of the principles, rights and duties consecrated in the Constitution ….” (A I Vellvé Torras & J J Ruchti translation, 1991).
- 74.
Article 4 of the Constitution states, “The Constitution is the norm of norms. In any case of inconsistency between the Constitution and the law or other legal norm, the constitutional provisions will be applied” (Constitución Política de Colombia, Article 4).
- 75.
The Court makes reference to the social function of property in just two rulings on the concrete control of constitutionality: Corte Constitucional [C.C.] [Constitutional Court], agosto 18, 1998, M.P: Alejandro Martinez Caballero, Sentencia T-427/98, and Corte Constitucional [C.C.] [Constitutional Court], julio 12, 2001, M.P Alfredo Beltrán Sierra, Sentencia T-746/01. While the right to property is not a fundamental right, it cannot be protected by use of the action of tutela. The action of tutela allows for protecting the fundamental rights of individuals from the improper acts or omissions of public officials. In the two cases of tutela mentioned above, the Constitutional Court ruled on the right to property by making use of the so-called doctrine of connectedness. The Court has held that in cases of tutela, an economic and social right can be addressed when it has a direct connection with a fundamental right.
- 76.
The ten rulings and issues they address are as follows: in the first ruling, the Constitutional Court upheld the constitutionality of Article 296 of the mining code, which provides for the termination of mining titles if they are not registered within one year after promulgation of the law. Corte Constitucional [C.C.] [Constitutional Court], enero 18, 1993, M.P: Eduardo Cifuentes Muñoz, Sentencia C-006/93. In the second, the Court upheld the constitutionality of the second article of Law 9 of 1989, which requires that the plan of municipal development include regulations on the free mandatory cessions to which builders are subject. Corte Constitucional [C.C.] [Constitutional Court], julio 29, 1993, M.P: Carlos Gaviria Díaz, Sentencia C-295/93. In the third, it declared constitutional Article 87 of Law 135 of 1961, which states that rural properties of less than three hectares may not be subdivided. Corte Constitucional [C.C.] [Constitutional Court], mayo 5, 1994, M.P: Jose Gregorio Hernández Galindo, Sentencia C-223/94. In the fourth, it upheld the constitutionality of Article 79 of 1988, which indicates that cooperatives cannot pursue profit while fulfilling a social function. Corte Constitucional [C.C.] [Constitutional Court], diciembre 7, 1995, M.P: Fabio Moron Díaz, Sentencia C-589/95. In the fifth, it upheld the constitutionality of Article 3 of Law 48 of 1882, Article 61 of Law 110 of 1912, and Article 65 of Law 160 of 1994, which define vacant public lands as inalienable. Corte Constitucional [C.C.] [Constitutional Court], diciembre 7, 1995, M.P: Carlos Gaviria Díaz, Sentencia C-595/95. In the sixth ruling, it declared Article 669 of the Civil Code to be unconstitutional. Corte Constitucional [C.C.] [Constitutional Court], agosto 18, 1999, M.P: Carlos Gaviria Díaz, Sentencia C-595/99. In the seventh, it declared that Article 217 of the national police code, which requires all owners to maintain the fronts of their houses or buildings, is constitutional. Corte Constitucional [C.C.] [Constitutional Court], junio 26, 2002, M.P: Marco Gerardo Monroy Cabra, Sentencia C-491/02. In the eighth, it upheld the constitutionality of the law governing the forfeiture of property. Corte Constitucional [C.C.] [Constitutional Court], junio 5, 2003, M.P: Jaime Cordoba Triviño, Sentencia C-740/03. In the ninth, it confirmed the constitutionality of Articles 86, 136, and 220 of the injunctive administrative code, which regulate the payment of indemnification that the state must provide when it permanently occupies an individual’s property. Corte Constitucional [C.C.] [Constitutional Court], september 7, 2004, M.P: Jaime Araújo Renteria, Sentencia C-864/04. In the tenth, it declared that Article 13 of Law 2 of 1959, which prohibits the sale of private lands that have been included in national parks, is constitutional. Corte Constitucional [C.C.] [Constitutional Court], marzo 15, 2006, M.P: Rodrigo Escobar Gil, Sentencia C-189/06.
- 77.
In a 2003 ruling, the Court discussed the 1936 constitutional reform:
The reforms introduced to the system in Article 10 of Legislative Act No. 1 of August 5, 1936 were substantial: (i) First, the right to private property was expressly referenced. (ii) Second, the motives by which social interest prevails over private interest were incorporated. (iii) Third, a mandate was enacted by which “Property is a social function that implies obligations.” (iv) And fourth, the legislature was empowered to order, for reasons of equity, expropriation without previous indemnification. These changes allowed for the definitive consolidation of Colombian constitutionalism, the foundations of the social state-based on solidarity, on the rationalization of economic relations, on the exercise of rights depending on the social context in which they are recognized, and committed to satisfying the primary needs of individuals. Hence, the nucleus of the individual subjective right par excellence—property—was affected in the Constitution, by displacing the arbitrary rule exercised over the property by its use for the social demands of generation of wealth and social welfare (Corte Constitucional [C.C.] [Constitutional Court], agosto 28, 2003, M.P: Jaime Cordoba Triviño, Sentencia C-740/03).
- 78.
On this point, the Constitutional Court has stated,
The Court does not believe that, to resolve the lawsuit, an analysis should be done on the origins and development of the right to property through the centuries, given the existence of varied case law and doctrine on the subject, it was sufficient to remember that the concept of property has undergone change, as in principle it was seen as a natural and absolute right, then closely linked to the notion of freedom, due to which Sieyes affirmed that freedom was a property in itself. Subsequently, and with the passage of time, more credence was given to the thought of those who argued that property must yield to the social obligations of State and the community at large, leading to the thesis of property as a social function. Léon Duguit, whose thought greatly influenced the constitutional reform of 1936, an influence that survives in the notion gathered by the present Constitution, referred to the character of the property in these terms … (Corte Constitucional [C.C.] [Constitutional Court], julio 29, 1993, M.P: Carlos Gaviria Díaz, Sentencia C-295/93).
- 79.
The Constitutional Court has also stated that,
The social function of property is incorporated into its contents to impose obligations on the owner for the benefit of society. In other words, the social content of the obligations internally limits the individual content of the powers of the owner, according to Duguit’s concept of property as function. In the case of vacant rural land, this social function is translated into an obligation to exploit it economically and to designate it exclusively for agricultural activities, not to use the land if it is designated as a reserve or to conserve renewable natural resources, etc. In one word, the social function is that the right to property must be exercised not to harm but to benefit society, designating or using it according to the collective needs and respecting the rights of others (Corte Constitucional [C.C.] [Constitutional Court], diciembre 7, 1995, M.P: Carlos Gaviria Díaz, Sentencia C-595/95).
- 80.
Ibid.
- 81.
The Constitutional Court has said:
In this order of ideas and defending the concept of social function, the legislator may impose on the owner a number of restrictions on ownership rights for the sake of preserving social interests, respecting, however, the core of the right itself, relative to the minimum level of enjoyment and disposition of a good that enables its holder to obtain economic benefits in terms of value for use or exchange value to justify the presence of a private interest in the property. This is why property is protected by the Constitution in accordance with the analysis and the circumstances of each case, especially if found to be connected and related to other specific fundamental rights. Given its social role, it should also be understood as a duty, as a formative and internal limit that commits owners to the duty of solidarity embodied in the Constitution. … The legal configuration of property, then, can point either to the suppression of certain powers, to their conditional exercise, or in some cases, the forced exercise of certain obligations (Corte Constitucional [C.C.] [Constitutional Court], agosto 18, 1998, M.P: Alejandro Martínez Caballero, Sentencia T-427/98).
- 82.
Corte Constitucional [C.C.] [Constitutional Court], enero 18, 1993, M.P: Eduardo Cifuentes Muñoz, Sentencia C-006/93.
- 83.
Ibid.
- 84.
Corte Constitucional [C.C.] [Constitutional Court], agosto 18, 1999, M.P: Carlos Gaviria Díaz, Sentencia C-595/99.
- 85.
Ibid.
- 86.
The Court stated:
Now, the entire theory of a subjective right was built, traditionally, keeping in mind the patrimonial right type par excellence: property. Analyzed with Duguit’s criteria, the right of ownership becomes a social function, which means that the owner is not a privileged subject, as he had been until that point, but an official, which is to say, someone who should manage that which he possesses as a function of social interests (which take prevalence over his own), a possession that is only guaranteed, in the individual sphere, if the objectives of collective benefit are met (Corte Constitucional [C.C.] [Constitutional Court], agosto 18, 1999, M.P: Carlos Gaviria Díaz, Sentencia C-595/99).
- 87.
Ibid.
- 88.
In this regard the Court says, “From [Duguit’s] sociological positivism a supposition of this nature is repelled [that of the will], only understandable from a metaphysical perspective, incompatible with the scientific analysis of the right. The conclusion, undoubtedly puzzling, is this: ‘Subjective rights do not exist.”’ Ibid.
- 89.
The Court indicated in relation to this point, “Reconciling the notion of acquired subjective rights with that of social function of is a nearly impossible task … which highlights the difficulty created by dispensing with such a useful conceptual tool (the subjective right) in both legislation and theorizing about the law.” Ibid.
- 90.
The Court affirmed:
What seems clear is that the advice of any careful reader of the transcribed article would be incompatible with a highly individualistic stamp such as the one embodied in Article 669, particularly emphasized in the word arbitrarily, and the hermeneutic efforts made so artificial as to be innocuous in distinguishing two meanings: capriciously, or according to discretion, and opting in this context to attribute the latter meaning to the adverb. Both options preserve the individualistic conception underlying the norm in question, incompatible with the higher order provision incorporated in 1936, informed by a political philosophy specifically constructed against individualism (Id).
- 91.
Corte Suprema de Justicia [C.S.J.] [Supreme Court], Sala. Plena agosto 11, 1988, M.P: Jairo Duque Perez.
- 92.
See supra text accompanying note 61.
- 93.
Corte Constitucional [C.C.] [Constitutional Court], agosto 18, 1999, M.P: Carlos Gaviria Díaz, Sentencia C-595/99.
- 94.
See supra text accompanying note 83.
- 95.
Corte Constitucional [C.C.] [Constitutional Court], agosto 18, 1999, M.P: Carlos Gaviria Díaz, Sentencia C-595/99.
- 96.
On the history of the NCA, see Dugas, Sanchez and Ungar 1991.
- 97.
Article 334 of the Constitution states:
The general management of the economy will be under the responsibility of the State. The latter will intervene, by mandate of the law, in the exploitation of the natural resources, in the use of the soil, the production, distribution, use, and consumption of goods, and in the public and private services in order to rationalize the economy with the purpose of achieving the improvement of quality of life of the inhabitants, the equitable distribution of opportunities and the benefits of development and the preservation of a healthy environment.
In a special manner, the State will intervene to give full employment to the human resources and to ascertain that all the persons, in particular those with lower incomes, have effective access to the basic goods and services. Also, to promote the productivity and competitiveness and harmonious development of the regions.
Constitución Política de Colombia, Article 334 (A I Vellvé Torras * J J Ruchti translation, 1991).
- 98.
Article 11 of Legislative Act 1 of 1936, which transformed the Constitution of 1886, stated, “The State can intervene in the operation of industries or public and private companies through legislation, with the objective of rationalizing the production, distribution and consumption of wealth, or giving the worker the proper protection to which he is entitled.” Legislative Act 1/36, agosto 5, 1936, DIARIO OFICIAL [D.O.] 23263, Article 11.
- 99.
On this subject, members of the Constituent Assembly Arias and Marulanda state in the bill they presented before the National Constituent Assembly,
A party that believes in the intervention of the State in the economy and that has popular support can be found in this brief subsection we are addressing [“Everyone has a right to access property … The State shall promote access to property, in accordance with the law …”] and refers to the right of all people to access property, a legal source for acting on the issue of redistribution, complemented by other legal pieces such as expropriation, in the terms of this article and that will be explained subsequently (Gómez and López (unpublished), 2).
This volume gathers all the original documents about the right to property produced by the National Constituent Assembly. See also Birry (1991); López (1991); Reyes (1991).
References
Constitutional Law, Legislation, and Quasi-legislative Documents
Code Napoleon
Código Civil (Civil Code)
Constitución de la Republica de Colombia (1886) [translation: Gibson WM (1948)]
Constitución Política de Colombia [translation: Torras AIV, Ruchti JJ]
Constitucion Politica de los Estados Unidos de Colombia (1863) [trans: Gibson WM (1948)]
Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789) [trans Helleu R (1918)]
Gaceta Constitucional No 113
Secondary Sources
Arango R (2002) La construcción de la nacionalidad. In: Mejía RS (ed) Miguel Antonio Caro Y La Cultura de su Época. Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá, p 125
Bergel JL (1988) Principal features and methods of codification. La L Rev 48:1073–1079
Birry FR (1991) Proyecto de Reforma de la Constitución Política de Colombia. Gaceta Constitucional 29, March 30
Botero S (2006) La reforma constitucional de 1936, el Estado y las políticas sociales en Colombia. Anuario Colombiano de Historia Social Y de la Cultura 33:85–109
Bushnell D (1993) The making of modern Colombia: a nation in spite of itself. University of California Press, Berkeley
Copello MMM (2001) La propiedad en la Constitución Colombiana de 1991: Superando la Tradición del Código Civil. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DISABILITY/Resources/News—Events/463933-1184017167861/3975400-1274206878303/7079715-1274206981485/M3-06-C-MariaMMaldonado-Bogota2001.doc
Dugas J, Sanchez R, Ungar E (1991) La Asamblea Nacional Constituyente, expresión de una voluntad general. In: David RS (ed) Los Nuevos Retos Electorales: Colombia 1990: Antesala del Cambio. CEREC, Bogotá, p 187
Dugas J (1993) La Constitución Política de 1991: un pacto político viable? In: Dugas J (ed) La Constitución de 1991: un pacto politico viable?. Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá, p 15
Duguit L (1975) Las Transformaciones del Derecho Público y Privado. Editorial Helliasta, Buenos Aires
Epstein RA (2009) Property rights and the rule of law; classical liberalism confronts the modern administrative state. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Febres-Cordero JB (1991) El Proceso Constituyente: de la Propuesta Estudiantil a la Quiebra del Bipartidismo. Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Cali
Gaus GF (1983) Public and private interests in liberal political economy, old and new. In: Benn SI, Gaus GF (eds) Public and private in social life. St Martin’s Press, New York, p 183
Gómez IM, López JA (unpublished) Artículo 58 de la Constitución de 1991. Available at Biblioteca Luis Ángel Arango
Gonzalez JOM (2007) Las vicisitudes del modelo liberal (1850-1899). In: Ocampo JA (ed) Historia Económica de Colombia. Ediciones Fondo de Cultura Económica SAS, Bogotá, p 135
Higuera LA, Bonilla Maldonado D (2007) Estudio preliminar. In: Merry SE, Griffiths J, Tamanaha BZ (eds) Pluralismo Jurídico. Siglo del Hombre Editores, Bogotá, p 89
Kahn PW (1999) The cultural study of law. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
LeGrand C (1986) Los antecedentes agrarios de la violencia: el conflicto social en la frontera colombiana. In: Sanchez G, Penaranda R (eds) Pasado Y Presente de la Violencia en Colombia. CEREC, Bogotá, pp 1850–1936
Lomasky LE (1987) Persons, rights, and the moral community. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Londoño F (1981) El Tiempo, El Siglo y la reforma constitucional de 1936. Cuadernos de Filosofía y Letras 4:213
López JA (1991) Propriedad: Proyecto de Acto Reformatorio de la Constitución Política de Colombia No 77. Gaceta Constitucional 23:128
Mack E (1990) Self-ownership and the right of property. Monist 73:519
Marino CB (1996) La intervención del Estado en la Economía: Colombia 1880-1936. Revista de Derecho Privado 9:5–103
Martinez MA (1939) Régimen de Tierras en Colombia: Antecedentes de la ley 200 de 1936 “Sobre Régimen de Tierras” y Decretos Reglamentarios. Ministerio de la Economía Nacional, Bogotá
Medina DEL (2009) El Derecho de Los Jueces: Obligatoriedad del Precedente Constitucional. Análisis de Sentencias Y Líneas Jurisprudenciales Y Teoría del Derecho Judicial, Legis Editores, Bogotá
Mejia AT, Velasquez M (1982) La Reforma Constitucional de 1936. Fundación Friederich Naumann/Oveja Negra, Bogotá
Melo JO (1989) La Constitución de 1886. In: Melo JO, Bejarano JA (eds) Nueva Historia de Colombia. Planeta, Bogotá, p 43
Mirow MC (2001) Borrowing private Law in Latin America: Andrés Bello’s use of the Code Napoleon in drafting the Chilean Civil Code. LA L Rev 61:291–330
Mirow MC (2005) The Code Napoleon: buried but ruling in Latin America. Denv J Int L Policy 33:179–194
Mirow MC (2010) The social-obligation norm of property: Duguit, Hayem, and others. Fla J Int L 22:191–226
Muñoz RR (2007) Derecho y Política: Miguel Antonio Caro y la regeneración en Colombia a finales del siglo XX. Opinión Jurídica 6(12):141–162
Narveson J (1988) The libertarian idea. Temple University Press, Philadelphia
Palacios M, Safford F (2002) Colombia: País Fragmentado, Sociedad Dividida: Su Historia. Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá
Palacios M (2002) La Regeneración ante el espejo liberal y su importancia en el siglo XX. In: Mejia RS (ed) Miguel Antonio Caro Y La Cultura de su Época. Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá
Pereira EB, Lecera JIC (2010) La función social de la propiedad: la recepción de León Duguit en Colombia. Criterio Jurídico 10(1):59–90
Pérez BE, Martínez LME (eds) (2008) Neoconstitucionalismo y Derecho Privado: El Debate. Biblioteca Jurídica Diké-Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá
Portalis JEM (1997) Discurso Preliminar al Código Civil Frances. Civitas, Madrid
Ramirez PBA (2008) La concepcion de la propriedad privada contenida en la ley de tierras de 1936. Revista Facultad de Derecho y Ciencias Politicas 38:97–121
Restrepo LA (1991) Asamblea Nacional Constituyente en Colombia: Concluirá por fin el Frente Nacional? Análisis Político 12:52–60
Reyes C (1991) El Derecho de Propiedad, una Disposición Anacrónica y Contradictoria. Gaceta Constitucional 107:187
Robles AH (2003) Límites constitucionales y legales al derecho de dominio en Colombia: análisis desde el derecho público. Revista de Derecho, Universidad del Norte 20:57–81
Rozo AB (2011) Venturas Y Desventuras de la Regeneración: Apuntes de Historia Jurídica Sobre el Proyecto Político de 1886 Y Sus Transformaciones Y Repturas en el Siglo XX. Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá
Taylor C (1991) The ethics of authenticity. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Villa HV (1987) Cartas de Batalla: Una Crítica del Constitucionalismo Colombiano. CEREC, Valencia
Williams PJ (1991) On Being the Object of Property. In: Bartlett KT, Kennedy R (eds) Feminist legal theory: readings in law and gender. Westview Press, Colorado, p 165
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bonilla, D. (2019). Liberalism and Property in Colombia: Property as a Right and Property as a Social Function. In: Babie, P., Viven-Wilksch, J. (eds) Léon Duguit and the Social Obligation Norm of Property. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-7189-9_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-7189-9_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-13-7188-2
Online ISBN: 978-981-13-7189-9
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)