Case 4430-2009

This case was an appeal of a constitutional protection (amparo) action before the Constitutional Court filed by the claimant, Carlos Alexander Molina Garrido, against the Ministry of National Defense. The claimant was dismissed from military service after a report that he was drunk in public, which he appealed before the Ministry. When his administrative appeal was denied, the claimant filed a protection action against it, arguing that his dismissal violated, his right to due process, his right to work, and his right to healthcare, as his mother, his dependent, was refused treatment at the Military Medical Center where she had previously received care. The lower court found no violation of the claimant’s rights in the Ministry’s proceeding, and denied the protection action.

The Court found that the decision to dismiss the claimant from military service based on his record of misconduct was in no way unlawful, given that the claimant had ample opportunity to exercise his right to a defense, and the decision appealed in this protection action was issued within the scope of the legal powers authorized to the respondent authority, and the respondent authority did not exceed such powers in issuing the resolution in question. Therefore, the Court found no violation of the claimant’s rights, and upheld the lower court’s decision.

"El postulante alego que...se ha violado el derecho a la salud de su familia, toda vez que la Corte de Constitucionalidad ha afirmado que las resoluciones administrativas no causan ejecutoria una vez impugnadas, y no obstante tal declaración, la autoridad impugnada vedó el derecho de su progenitora a ser atendida en el Centro Médico Militar, no obstante que ella padece de diabetes en grado avanzado."

“The claimant alleged that…his family’s right to health has been violated, given that the Constitutional Court has confirmed that administrative resolutions under appeal are to be suspended and not enforced, however, the respondent authority has prevented the claimant’s mother from receiving medical attention at the Military Medical Center, despite the fact that she suffers from a severe case of diabetes.”

"El agravio es un elemento esencial para la procedencia del amparo. Sin su concurrencia no es posible el otorgamiento de la protección que la mencionada acción conlleva, sobre todo cuando la autoridad impugnada al momento de emitir el acto que se denuncia como agraviante, ha actuado en el ejercicio de sus atribuciones y funciones reconocidas por la ley; ha interpretado y aplicado la norma en un sentido apropiado, lo que no patentiza violación de derechos fundamentales garantizados por la Constitución Política de la República, los tratados internacionales y las leyes."

“The violation of a right is the essential element required in order for the protection action to proceed. Without such violation, the protection requested by the aforementioned action cannot be granted, above all when the respondent authority, at the time of issuing the act that is challenged as in violation of a right, has acted within the scope of its powers and authorities as recognized by the law, and has interpreted and applied the law in an appropriate manner.”