Antinomy of the appeal in the common civil declarative process of enrichment without just cause of public officials and employees in El Salvador

Abstract

The Law on Illicit Enrichment of Public Officials and Employees (LEIFEP) is the only one that has survived three constitutions, being catalogued until today as a pre-constitutional law. With the passage of time and its application, LEIFEP has proven to be a regulation with some shortcomings from the administrative and punitive aspects, extending to procedural aspects, specifically in relation to the means of challenge. The article proposes, based on the provisions of Articles 12 and 14 of the LEIFEP, to analyze and describe whether the rules to which the LEIFEP refers to the common process generate substantial inconsistencies in the appeal process as the only means of challenge, supported by a series of judicial resolutions in which normative antinomies or contradictions have been discovered between the LEIFEP and the Code of Civil Procedures (CPrC), known today as Civil and Commercial Procedure Code (CPCM), regarding the objective contestability within the judicial process and functional competence or objective to resolve resources. To understand these antinomies, the articles of the three aforementioned regulations are compared, to conclude, based on the jurisprudence, the LEIFEP and the CPCM, that to fill the gaps of the LEIFEP, in the antinomy of objective impugnability, the heterointegration of the CPCM is not appropriate, while in the antinomy of functional competence, the heterointegration of the aforementioned procedural rule is appropriate, however, in light of historical documents of the legislator of 1959, the competent body to resolve it and why, conclusions that should foreseeably be considered for the issuance of the new Law on Enrichment without Just Cause of Public Officials and Employees (LECAFE).