The right of action allows individuals to access the courts to file a claim, even before it has been determined whether there is a substantive basis for the claim. This broad scope protects access to justice, but it also raises the question of what happens when procedural safeguards are invoked repeatedly and without foundation to delay a process.
Procedural Action as an Autonomous Right
The theory of legal action has evolved alongside legal systems, but it retains a central idea: legal action is an abstract, autonomous, and individual right.When a person believes their rights or interests have been violated, they can request state intervention so that a court can hear their claim and issue a decision.
Legal scholars have debated whether legal action should be understood as a procedural subjective right or as the legal power to access the courts. In both approaches, its exercise depends on the will of the holder and not on whether the claim is ultimately upheld. The courts are set in motion to examine the conflict, not to anticipate the merits of the claimant.
Access to Justice and Effective Judicial Protection
The theory of legal action has evolved alongside legal systems, but it retains a central idea: legal action is an abstract, autonomous, and individual right.When a person believes their rights or interests have been violated, they can request state intervention so that a court can hear their claim and issue a decision.
Legal proceedings can only be effective when there is genuine access to justice.In Panama, Articles 32 and 201 of the Constitution provide the framework for due process and free, expeditious, and uninterrupted access to justice.Internationally, Articles 8 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognize, respectively, the right to an effective remedy and the guarantees that protect every accused person.
The relationship with due process
Due process and effective judicial protection are distinct but closely linked guarantees. Access opens the door to the courts; due process determines how the claim must be processed; and effective judicial protection requires that the entire system function effectively, impartially, and promptly.
“No one shall be tried except by a competent authority and in accordance with legal procedures, and not more than once for the same criminal, administrative, police, or disciplinary offense.”
This mandate of Article 32 of the Constitution prevents arbitrary judicial action. At the same time, it confirms that procedural formalities are guarantees for the parties and not tools intended to indefinitely prevent a decision on the merits.
Procedural Guarantee and Dilatory Tactics
The possibility of alleging a violation of due process is essential. However, when an allegation is repeated without substantiation and is used solely to buy time, wear down the opposing party, or obstruct the judicial process, the exercise of this guarantee can conflict with the right of others to obtain a decision within a reasonable time.
Effective judicial protection does not simply mean obtaining a favorable decision.It encompasses the possibility of appealing to a competent authority, filing a claim, participating in a legally compliant procedure, and receiving a reasoned decision.The State does not fulfill its obligation merely by allowing the case to exist: it must provide a reasoned response and ensure that the decision is effective.
Conclusion
The theory of action explains how a claim activates the jurisdictional function; effective judicial protection ensures that this access is real; and due process establishes the guarantees that must be respected during the proceedings. None of these institutions requires a favorable judgment, but they do require a legal procedure, a reasoned decision, and a useful response.
Preserving this balance strengthens legal certainty and social peace. Procedural guarantees must protect the parties without becoming delaying mechanisms that render meaningless the right of others to effective justice.
Conclusionconclusionendendingclosurecloseinferencefinishdeductionconsensusfinalityepitome
