The Protection Action as Constitutional Review of Administrative Disciplinary Power in Chile

Abstract

This article examines the protection action as a mechanism of constitutional review over administrative disciplinary power in Chile. It argues that the remedy established in Article 20 of the Constitution does not replace the merits of disciplinary proceedings, nor does it turn courts int general appellate bodies over civil service discipline. Nevertheless, it may correct manifest illegality or arbitrariness affecting fundamental rights, especially in cases involving vague charges, denial of defense, lack of access to the file, insufficient reasoning, incongruence,

disproportionality, bias, or unreasonable delay. Based on a doctrinal and case-law reconstruction,

the article proposes a minimum review test to distinguish ordinary merits disputes from urgent

constitutional injuries.