Abstract
This article refers to the Chilean legal tradition of the relative effect of judgments, that is, their effects apply only to the parties involved in the litigation. This principle has an express exception in the Consumer Rights Protection Act, which mentions the erga omnes effect. Since 2010, this principle has come under scrutiny due to constitutional injunctions in social security matters administered by private companies known as ISAPRES (National Health Insurance Companies). These companies have increased the prices of health plans, using tables that apply factors based on age and sex. This has led to the filing of thousands of lawsuits before the Chilean Courts of Appeals, which must hear each case individually. The Supreme Court has recently issued rulings establishing that its application applies to all similar cases, which has sparked a considerable discussion regarding the potential violation of the relative effect of rulings. This article seeks to explain that in cases of fundamental rights that are violated by identical facts affecting other people, the expansive effect of rulings is possible. This does not constitute judicial activism, but merely fulfills the Courts’ duty to reestablish the rule of law.
Recommended Citation
José Luis Guerrero Becar, On the Need to Recognize the Erga Omnes Effect in Fundamental Rights in Chilean Law, 1 Latin Am. & Carib. L. Rev. (2026), https://ecollections.law.fiu.edu/latinamericancaribbeanlawreview/vol1/iss1/9.
Included in
Administrative Law Commons, Civil Procedure Commons, Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, Consumer Protection Law Commons, Courts Commons, Health Law and Policy Commons, Human Rights Law Commons, Judges Commons, Jurisprudence Commons, Law and Economics Commons, Other Law Commons, Retirement Security Law Commons, Rule of Law Commons
