The theoretical-dogmatic issues of res judicata, both formal and material, in Colombian constitutional case law

Abstract

Constitutional courts often render final and definitive decisions on the scope of the current constitution. Res judicata emerges as an institution that prevents reopening constitutional discussions on previously examined norms or provisions. This article aims to analyze the prerequisites and effects of formal and material res judicata in abstract constitutional review. Not only are its conceptual foundations reviewed, but its integration with the interpretative and justificatory operations that partially legitimize the activity of the constitutional court is also assessed. The text argues that normative provisions or contents have a contingent configuration that prevents their use as presuppositions for adopting decision rules. Identical texts do not yield identical interpretations or norms, and identical qualifications of constitutionality or unconstitutionality do not necessarily follow from the identity of norms.