El control constitucional de las resoluciones judiciales vía amparo: Motivación aparente e incongruencia sustancial

Abstract

The constitutional action of amparo against judicial decisions constitutes a constitutional mechanism aimed at protecting fundamental rights against arbitrary jurisdictional rulings. However, in Peruvian judicial practice, particularly within the Judicial District of Huancayo, its application has generated controversy regarding its effectiveness and its potential impact on the violation of the right to the due reasoning of judicial decisions, especially when grounds such as apparent reasoning or substantively incongruent reasoning are invoked. General Objective: To analyze how the amparo action against judicial decisions is filed and resolved in the Judicial District of Huancayo, and to determine whether this mechanism violates the right to the due reasoning of judicial decisions. Methodology: The study was basic in nature, with a legal–social approach and a descriptive level. A nonexperimental, cross-sectional design was employed. The sample consisted of 30 legal practitioners (judges, prosecutors, university lecturers, and practicing lawyers), selected through intentional non-probabilistic sampling. Data collection techniques included a structured survey and documentary analysis, with descriptive statistics applied for data processing. Results: The findings show that 76.7% of respondents believe that the State protects effective procedural tutela, while 73.3% indicate that there is a lack of protection of fundamental rights. Likewise, 86.7% maintain that due reasoning provides legal protection in the administration of justice, and 80.0% acknowledge that fundamental rights guarantee effective procedural tutela. Conclusions: It is concluded that, although amparo against judicial decisions is perceived as a safeguard against judicial arbitrariness, its application presents limitations that may lead to violations of the right to due reasoning, highlighting the need for a more restrictive and technically well-founded use of this constitutional mechanism.