Head of the Llano Grande Educational Institution v Governor’s Office of Boyacá and the Secretary for Education of the Department of Boyacá, Judgement T-279/18 - Colombia

---

Background

The Head of the Educational Institution Llano Grande of the municipality of Nuevo Colón, Boyacá, Colombia, brought a tutela action against the Secretary for Education of the Department of Boyacá in defence of the children who studied in the institution. He did so on the grounds that the children’s constitutional rights to health, life, personal integrity and to receive quality educational services in conditions of dignity (Arts. 44, 49 and 67 of the Constitution) were seriously threatened, due to the fact that the Secretary for Education of the Department of Boyacá had refused several times to provide the institution with an additional employee to provide cleaning services. The Secretary justified their decision on the basis of article 3 of the Resolution no. 2314 , which provided that only two employees could be appointed in institutions with less than 300 students, which was the case with Llano Grande. The Head of Llano Grande requested that a judicial inspection be ordered, as well as the appointment of an employee to carry out the functions in question, and that the authorities be ordered not to engage in such practices again, nor to ignore petitions aimed at protecting the fundamental rights of children in Boyacá's educational institutions. The injunction was denied by both the Third Labour Court of the Circuit of Tunja (31 October 2017) and the Labour Chamber of the High Court of the Judicial District of Tunja.

Reasoning

The Court found that the head of the educational institution had standing to intervene on behalf of the children studying at the institution because their fundamental rights were seriously threatened by the sanitary conditions caused by the lack of staff to carry out cleaning work (art. 44 of the Constitution, art. 11 of the Code on Children and Adolescents and Ruling T-498 of 1994).

The Constitutional Court found that the absence of administrative personnel would not necessarily constitute a violation of the right to access to education of the underage students. However, where the absence or interruption of a general or administrative service (such as cleaning service) represented a barrier to access, obstructed the stay of students in an educational institution or affected the right of children to receive education in decent conditions, such an interruption constituted a violation of their fundamental right to education (art. 67 of the Constitution). Thus, when the absence of cleaning staff led to a serious deterioration in the health and hygiene conditions of an institution, the right of children to receive an education in decent conditions was violated.

The Court also stated that the right to accessible education carried with it a corresponding obligation on the part of the State to take deliberate, concrete and targeted steps towards the implementation of education. Failure to do so violated the rights to education and to equality of opportunity, which means that the fundamental right to education entails a positive obligation to provide the material conditions (through administrative supervision, cleaning, transport and secretarial services) in educational institutions that will encourage students to learn and guarantee that children can access education in conditions of dignity.

The Court declared that the Secretary for Education of the Department of Boyacá may waive the limit on the number of employees established by Article 3 of Resolution no. 2314 in order to guarantee the right to education in accordance with article 67 of the Constitution.

Remedy

The Court ordered the Secretary of Education of Boyacá to assign, within a period of one month, a provisional employee for cleaning duties, and the permanent assignment of such personnel within a period of one year. It also ordered the Ombudsman's Office to prepare and submit trimestral reports to the judge for a period of one year. In addition, it warned the Ministry of Education to refrain from engaging again in the conduct that gave rise to the violation of fundamental rights and, in this regard, to take effective measures in a timely manner when children's right to education is threatened or has been violated. The Court ordered the headmaster, in compliance with his legal duty to ensure the quality of the educational service (in line with Article 10.14 of Law 715 of 2001), to instruct students to understand that they must fulfil their duties to care for and preserve communal property and spaces in good condition.

Role of children

Children were not directly involved in the litigation. The Head of the Educational Institution Llano Grande brought the tutela action on behalf of the children in that institution, whose fundamental rights were being violated. Articles 44 of the Constitution and 11 of the Code on Children and Adolescents granted him standing in the tutela action. Furthermore, Ruling T-498 de 1994 (relied on in this case) provided that institutions other than children’s legal representatives may take action “provided that the letter or request states that the violation of [children’s] fundamental rights is imminent, or the absence of a legal representative”, which was the case in this instance.

Enforcement and other outcomes

There is no publicly available information that confirms compliance with the court's orders.

Significance of the case from a CRSL perspective

The tutela action led to the recognition that a legal provision may not apply in circumstances where it would result in the fundamental rights of children are violated. The court also ruled that the obligation of public institutions to guarantee education not only consists of the provision of education itself, but also of the material conditions to guarantee that children can access education in conditions of dignity, thus concretising the substance of this obligation. All of the above may be used for argumentation in the future to advance children’s rights in Colombia and benefit other groups of children as well.

Country

Colombia

Forum and date of decision

Constitutional Court of Colombia

July 17, 2018

CRC provisions and other international law provisions/sources

• Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) Articles 3(1) and 3(2)

• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Article 24(1)

• American Convention on Human Rights, Article 19

• UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 13 on the right to education, Article 10(3)

• UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child, Principle 2

Domestic law provisions

• Political Constitution of Colombia, Articles 10, 13, 44, 49, 67, 86, 241-9, 356, 357, 366

• Decree no. 2591 of October 1991, by which the tutela action enshrined in Article 86 of the Political Constitution is regulated, Articles 1, 5, 6, 10, 13, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 44

• Secretary for Education of the Department of Boyacá Resolution no. 2314 of April 2014 establishing the criteria for the assignment of administrative officials to each educational institution, Article 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

• Secretary for Education of the Department of Boyocá, Circular informativa No. 111 of 30 October 2014 Guidance on the implementation of Resolution No. 03214 of 24 April 2014, on criteria for the assignment of administrative officials in the Educational Institution

• Law 715 of 2001 by which organic norms are dictated in terms of resources and competences in accordance with articles 151, 288, 356 and 357 (Legislative Act 01 of 2001) of the Political Constitution and by which other provisions are dictated to organise the delivery of education and health services, among others, Articles 5, 6, 7, 10, 15, 17, 84, 89

• Code on Children and Adolescents (Law 1098 of 2006), Article 11

• Decree 1860 of 1994 partially regulating Law 115 of 1994, in the general pedagogical and organisational aspects, Article 25

• Law 393 of 1997 by which article 87 of the Political Constitution is developed, Article 9

• Decree 3020 of 2002 establishing the criteria and procedures for organising the teaching and administrative staffing levels of the state education service provided by territorial entities and issuing other provisions, Article 11

• Legislative Act 1 of 2001 amending some articles of the Political Constitution  

• Legislative Act 4 of 2007 amending Articles 356 and 357 of the Political Constitution

• Law 1176 of 2007 by which Articles 356 and 357 of the Political Constitution are developed and other provisions are enacted, Article 31

• Law 721 of 2001 by means of which Law 75 of 1968 is amended

Related information

The applicants:

Head of Llano Grande Educational Institution

153627, Nuevo Colón (Boyacá), Colombia

The respondents:

Secretary for Education of the Department of Boyacá

Carrera 10 No 18-68. Tunja (Boyacá) Colombia

List of amicus curiae:

Ministry of Education of Colombia

Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

Case documents

• Judgement T-279/18

Secondary documents

“ÍNDICE Sintético De La Calidad Educativa -ISCE” [Quality Index for educational institutions] (Portal Ministerio de Educación Nacional - Presentación), accessed October 11, 2022

Villegas García Mauricio and others, Separados y Desiguales: Educación y Clases Sociales En Colombia (Dejusticia 2013)

Góngora Mera Manuel Eduardo (Defensoría del Pueblo 2003) publication

“Education in Colombia: Highlights 2016” (OECD 2016) publication