Ponderación constitucional y subsunción penal: correctivo sistémico al funcionalismo jakobsiano en Bolivia
Year: 2026
Type: article
Abstract: Introduction: This study examines the methodological tension between constitutional balancing and criminal subsumption in the jurisprudence of Bolivia’s Plurinational Constitutional Tribunal (TCP) from 2012 to 2024, considering the fragmented reception of Jakobs’ systemic functionalism and the constitutional limits imposed on punitive intervention.Objective: To identify the epistemological aporias associated with that reception, document the quality of constitutional balancing in the selected jurisprudential corpus, and formulate the theoretical foundations of a pre-typical constitutional balancing model adapted to plurinational constitutionalism.Methodology: A mixed approach with qualitative predominance was applied to a defined corpus of 18 TCP constitutional rulings. Each decision was examined through seven indicators scored from 0 to 3 and classified as P0, P1, P2, or P3 according to its overall balancing quality. The corpus corresponds to the 18 rulings documented in the author’s doctoral research source chapter and was analyzed in full for this article.Results: None of the 18 rulings reached P3 rigorous balancing. Five were classified as P0, five as P1, and eight as P2, establishing partial balancing as the highest observed level.Conclusions: The findings document a persistent methodological deficit but do not empirically validate the proposed model. Constitutionally limited constructivism and the pre-typical balancing protocol are presented as theoretical-normative proposals requiring independent empirical evaluation before claims about practical effectiveness can be sustained.
Source: Sapiens Law and Justice
DOI: 10.71068/slj00010
Author: Antonio Lennar Loredo Ríos
Language: English
Field: Social Sciences
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: hybrid
OpenAlex ID: W7215046929