Judicial activism has generated intense debates about its scope and limits within constitutional democracies, especially in Latin America. This article examines the Peruvian experience, where the Constitutional Court has developed a practice that directly influences the configuration and reform of public policies. Through the analysis of five emblematic judgments – on prison overcrowding, the right to identity, public health, family planning and a gender perspective – the ways in which judicial activism has operated as a corrective mechanism in the face of legislative and administrative omissions are evidenced. The study, with a qualitative and hermeneutical approach, argues that the judicial action has had a positive impact, contributing to the effective guarantee of fundamental rights. Likewise, a comparative analysis is carried out with the cases of Colombia, Spain and the European Court of Human Rights, with the aim of identifying criteria that guide legitimate judicial activism that respects the democratic principle.
Cynthia Makarena Armas Hidalgo (Fri,) studied this question.