Fundamental Principles of Procedural Law: A Comprehensive Analysis
Fundamental Principles of Procedural Law
1. The Public Interest in the Process
The process has an eminently public or general interest since, by its nature, it guarantees respect for life, peace, social harmony, and justice.
2. The Exclusive and Mandatory Role of the State
The judicial function is a power of the state, prohibiting private justice. This determines the obligation of citizens to submit to state judicial decisions. The state is the sole administrator of justice.
3. Independence of the Judicial Authority
Officials in charge of administering justice must work freely in the assessment of law and equity. No coercion can exist in the performance of their duties.
4. Rigorous Impartiality of Judicial Officers
Impartiality requires independence of the judiciary. There should be an absence of any personal interest in the decision issued by the judge, who cannot have a conflict with their personal interests, as they cannot be both judge and party.
5. Equality of Parties Before the Law
The parties have equal opportunities; there are, in principle, no privileged parties.
6. The Right to Be Heard and the Guarantee of Defense
This principle, emanating directly from the National Constitution (CN), states that no individual can be convicted without being heard and tried according to procedures previously established by law.
7. Public Trial
Justice cannot be administered in secret, with hidden procedures, or without the existence of background or motivations. Publicity is limited to discussions of the evidence, the motivation of the decision, its publication, intervention, and notification to the parties.
8. Binding Nature of Procedures Set Forth in the Law
The law establishes the procedures to be followed. No one, not even the judges, can change them, not even by express agreement of the parties in conflict, except when the law expressly permits.
9. Judgments Do Not Create, but Declare Rights
The judge merely declares rights under the rules of positive law or denies any that the law does not expressly provide. The official cannot invent rights.
10. Principle of Procedural Truth
Procedural truth is what is in the process, arising from the evidence. This may differ from the real truth. For the judge, the important truth for decisions is procedural and should stick to it, although often very different from the real truth. Ideally, procedural truth is the same as real truth. Procedural justice is not always consistent with the reality of the facts. The judge rules in accordance with what is proven in the process.
11. Principle of Res Judicata
Once a dispute or matter between the parties has been decided with the legal formalities, these same parties must abide by the resolution. The parties are not allowed to raise it again, and the judges must observe it. Judgments can only be challenged by legal means expressly provided.
12. Inquisitive or Dispositive Principle
This principle has two aspects:
- Parties initiate the process by submitting the claim with their claims.
- Parties seek testing without the court being able to order them automatically.
The initiative generally lies with the parties, and the judge must follow them exclusively, not taking the initiative to establish the truth or determine who is right on the facts. The inquisitive aspect gives the court the duty to investigate the truth by legal means at its disposal, without the downtime of the parties, nor obliging it to limit itself to the means they provide or request. It also empowers the court to initiate the process and direct it with its own initiatives.
13. Principle of Valuation of Evidence by the Court
The administration of justice requires an assessment of the evidence. The judge must determine the principles to be considered in assessing the evidence and the effects that can be drawn from each piece of evidence. The system allows the judge discretion in the value or strength of conviction of the evidence. It is the same to talk about free valuation as assessment by sound criticism.
14. Principle of Procedural Impetus
This is directly related to the inquisitorial system. Once the process has begun, the judge or the secretary must carry out the act in question without the need for the parties to do so, simply because it meets the legal standards that regulate it. However, there are acts that depend on the willingness of the parties, while others are simple processing.
15. Principle of Judicial Economy
This means less work and cheaper and faster justice. It is the consequence that there must be more results with minimal use of procedural activity.
16. Principle of Concentration of the Process
This seeks to have the process carried out in the shortest possible time, avoiding incidental or accidental issues that hinder the course of the process. This will tend to have all questions resolved simultaneously with the sentence, focusing the discussion of evidence.
17. Principle of Eventuality or Preclusion
This seeks order, clarity, and speed in the process. During the process, there are various steps for the judge or the parties to exercise properly, and if not done at the right moment, it has no legal value. It is the distribution of opportunities to exercise the attack or defense, but only at the right times, even when the effects are in the future.
18. Principle of Immediacy
This seeks immediate communication between the judge and the persons engaged in the process, the facts, and the evidence. Immediacy can be understood as subjective proximity or contact of the court with certain personal and subjective elements. It requires that the act of practicing the test be in the presence of the court, which must assess its merit. Objective immediacy concerns the judge’s communication with things and events of interest to the process. Sometimes it provides a necessary act of contact between the test and a specific objective fact, e.g., the witness sees the note or notes, bills, or is heard at the scene. Immediacy can be considered objective but negatively as a prohibition on the parties or witnesses relying on any draft reply, e.g., in the reconstruction of the facts in cases authorized by law.
19. Principle of Orality or Writing
This principle depends on the prevailing system in the process. In oral proceedings, there are written processes, such as hearings or incidents. The system adopted in each country depends on this principle, but there is a tendency towards orality in all countries. There is no system that is entirely oral or entirely written.
20. Principle of Interest to Intervene in the Process
This principle is intended to limit the right to intervene in processes to persons having a legal interest, whether economic or familial. If all human beings had the opportunity to intervene in any proceedings, it would not fulfill its purposes and would be wasteful. The plaintiff and the defendant have sufficient legal interest to intervene in the process. Third parties cannot intervene without a serious, present interest in the results of the process. Third-party intervention is authorized only to the extent that the results of the process affect the performance of a number of legal conditions.
21. Principle of Interest in a Substantive Order
Those who make requests must have a legitimate, serious, and current interest in what they are pursuing. One can be a party to a process but not have the substantive interest to challenge the statements sought by the demand. One has the right to decide on the sentence and end the process, whether or not substantive law is sought by the applicant and the correlative obligation of the defendant, or whether a substantive legal relationship is declared or becomes claimed.
22. Principle of Good Faith and Procedural Loyalty
It is essential that the process develop with the attitude of the judge and the parties being that of good faith and fairness. The law punishes bad faith in trials, establishing mechanisms to punish it, and where the judge can investigate and punish conduct such as procedural fraud. Procedural loyalty is the result of good faith in the process, rejecting traps, twists, and chicanery. It is also a subject of the judge’s duty to safeguard the conduct of the parties.
23. Principle of Appeal
Any act of the judge that would prejudice the interests of the parties or one party may be contested. If there is an error, the proposed remedy is adequately sought to amend that error or defect. It is an opportunity for amendment by appeal or objection to a decision for errors or defects presented in the course of a process.
24. Principle of Two Instances
In accordance with the principles of challenge, the principle of two instances arises. To be effective, the right to challenge the decisions of judges has been established in the organization of the administration of justice. Two judges of different ranks may know of a process by filing an appeal. Of course, there are some issues that the law has set as a single instance, in which another senior judge is not allowed to know the case on the basis of the resource. This is enshrined in Article 29 of the CN.
25. Principle of Motivation of Judgment
This principle is intended for the judge to explain decisions and substantiate the reason. This way, abuses and arbitrariness are avoided, and it is the means by which the right to challenge can be exercised, as there are reasons to do so. The resolution in a sentence is the result of the reasons or motivations that are explained. Motivation is not only for sentences but for any decision the judge makes; these are the legal reasons for their action, the reasoning of the judicial officer.
26. Principle of the Burden of Proof
As a requirement to ensure a judicial decision, the principle is established that when the test is missing or insufficient on the facts on which to base the decision, it must be resolved in favor of the opposing party, which had to adduce or prove it. In criminal law, there is an interesting application here, as there is a principle of in dubio pro reo, since evidentiary doubts should always be resolved in favor of the accused, charged, or prosecuted, and until proven otherwise, they are presumed innocent. This emanates from Article 29 of the CN.
27. Principle of Congruence
This principle is intended to ensure that there is a legal identity between the ruling of the court and what was tried by the parties, i.e., that the sentence is consonant with what was discussed and tested in the course of the process. During the process, there are stages in which the parties present their arguments, which should be subject to discussion. The claims of the parties and the evidence should be discussed procedurally so that all that context serves the judge in the decision that they will ultimately take.
28. Principle of Humanization of Justice
This principle seeks to humanize legal proceedings as much as possible, to respect the social function of public interest, to obtain and safeguard peace and social harmony, and the fundamental rights of human beings.