Constitutional balancing as a systemic corrective in criminal subsumption: overcoming the aporias of jakobs’ functionalism in the plurinational state of Bolivia
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.71068/SLJ00010Keywords:
constitutional balancing, criminal subsumption, Jakobs functionalism, guaranteeism, Plurinational State of BoliviaAbstract
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.
References
1. Gavião Filho AP, Guidolin RV. O teste da proporcionalidade no Tribunal Constitucional do Peru e no Supremo Tribunal Federal. Rev Direitos Humanos Democr. 2023;11(22):e13607. https://doi.org/10.21527/2317-5389.2023.22.13607.
2. da Silva VA. Standing in the shadows of balancing: proportionality and the necessity test. Int J Const Law. 2022;20(5):1738-1767. https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/moac105.
3. Ondřejek P, Horák F. Proportionality during times of crisis: precautionary application of proportionality analysis in the judicial review of emergency measures. Eur Const Law Rev. 2024;20(1):27-51. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1574019624000051.
4. Beade GA. Los delitos de peligro y la proporcionalidad constitucional: una reestructuración de la responsabilidad penal bajo los lineamientos básicos del principio de proporcionalidad. Ius Prax. 2022;28(3):191-210. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-00122022000300191.
5. Pecaric M. A Bayesian improvement of the proportionality principle. Ratio Juris. 2022;35(4):419-436. https://doi.org/10.1111/raju.12366.
6. Sánchez Barroso B. El principio de proporcionalidad en contextos de incertidumbre: insuficiencias y posibles soluciones a la luz de la COVID-19. Rev Esp Derecho Const. 2023;(128):37-71. https://doi.org/10.18042/cepc/redc.128.02
7. Xiao S. State-centric proportionality analysis in Chinese administrative litigation. Int J Const Law. 2023;21(2):461-487. https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/moad051.
8. Blanco AE. La jurisprudencia del Tribunal Constitucional español sobre el principio de proporcionalidad en el proceso penal. Anu Derecho Penal Cienc Penal. 2021;74(1). https://doi.org/10.53054/adpcp.v74i1.7910
9. Bagni S, Rodríguez Caguana A, Castro León F. Una exploración del pluralismo jurídico intercultural en la jurisprudencia de Bolivia, Colombia y Ecuador. Rev Derecho Estado. 2023;(58):61-90. https://doi.org/10.18601/01229893.n58.03
10. Doyle M. The case of Piruani: contested justice, legal pluralism, and indigeneity in Highland Bolivia. Polit Leg Anthropol Rev. 2021;44(1):60-74. https://doi.org/10.1111/plar.12424.
11. Wolkmer AC. Rethinking practices of legal pluralism in Latin America. Rev Crit Cienc Soc. 2023;(132):27-48. https://doi.org/10.4000/rccs.15103
12. Rojas Tudela F. Ponderación y diálogo intercultural: jurisprudencia y práctica del Tribunal Constitucional Plurinacional. Rev Derecho UCB. 2024;8(17):51-79. https://doi.org/10.35319/lawreview.202415107.
13. Moreira Cordova JA. Un análisis jurisprudencial con relación a la operativización del paradigma del vivir bien desde las pautas de interpretación intercultural de derechos. Rev Con-Sciencias Soc. 2023;15(28):34-47. https://doi.org/10.35319/consciencias.20232873.
14. Ochoa Jiménez MJ. Indigenous peoples’ normative orders and restitution: Latin American private international law and human rights. Legal Plur Crit Soc Anal. 2022;54(2-3):176-192. https://doi.org/10.1080/27706869.2022.2122317.
15. Banse M, Stanka H. The complex relationship between legal pluralisms and the Rechtsstaat in Peru and Bolivia. Z Vgl Polit Wiss. 2025;19:291-311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12286-025-00640-3.
16. Gamboa L, García-Holgado B, González-Ocantos E. Courts against backsliding: lessons from Latin America. Law Policy. 2024;46(4):358-379. https://doi.org/10.1111/lapo.12246.
17. Baffero F, et al. The restorative nature of Aymara Indigenous justice in Bolivia. Int J Restor Justice. 2024;7(2):202-225. https://doi.org/10.5553/TIJRJ.000171.
18. Tribunal Constitucional Plurinacional de Bolivia. Buscador de Causas y Resoluciones. Disponible en: https://buscador.tcpbolivia.bo/busqueda-resolucion
19. Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia. Constitución Política del Estado. Gaceta Oficial del Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia; 2009. Disponible en: https://www.gacetaoficialdebolivia.gob.bo/app/webroot/archivos/constitucion.pdf
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Antonio Lennar Loredo Ríos
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
