The legitimacy of the criminal judge

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: to establish that the jurisdictional bodies, despite being part of the traditional triad of powers, are not like the other two -legislative and executive-, elected democratically. METHOD: the methodology applied for it responds to descriptive research, through bibliographical consultations on the subject. It should be borne in mind that judicial activity does not follow the same guidelines as those of the other two functions of powers, that is, the line that allows democratic monitoring of their activities. RESULTS: this article aims to denote that, although the jurisdictional bodies are not democratically elected, they hold a legitimacy that can be called functional legitimacy, that is, a jurisdictional body that exercises jurisdiction, always asserting itself over the ordinary system, the rules of the International Conventions on Human Rights or the Constitution, legitimize its existence and functioning. CONCLUSION: the judiciary, as a place where jurisdiction is exercised, its legitimacy depends on the fulfillment of the constitutional requirements and tasks. In this way, it is an instrumental legitimacy, because only the model of judiciary that reflects its related purpose is legitimate. In a dynamic sense, the action of the Judiciary is only legal when it is ordered to exercise its functions within the framework of the constitutional text and the Constitutional State of Law.