Granted on paper, undermined in practice: Fee waivers and access to civil justice in Chile

Leonel Gonzalez Postigo; Daniel Sanzana Gonzalez

doi:10.35295/osls.iisl.2614

Autores/as

Leonel Gonzalez Postigo Alberto Hurtado University
Daniel Sanzana Gonzalez Alberto Hurtado University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl.2614

Palabras clave:

Acceso a la justicia, exención de tasas, procedimiento civil, asistencia jurídica gratuita, estudios jurídicos empíricos

Resumen

Este estudio ofrece la primera evaluación empírica sistemática del «privilegio de pobreza» en el proceso civil chileno. Mediante un diseño de métodos mixtos, analizamos 326 expedientes de 99 tribunales de primera instancia (2020-2024) y realizamos 24 entrevistas semiestructuradas a jueces, abogados y usuarios. Nuestra muestra se centra en litigantes asistidos que obtuvieron con éxito representación legal, lo que nos permite examinar las barreras de implementación en lugar de las barreras de acceso inicial. Nuestros hallazgos revelan una paradoja: mientras que la tasa de concesión formal alcanza el 100 %, la eficacia práctica se ve socavada por las deficiencias en la implementación. En el 11,7 % de los casos, los auxiliares judiciales cobraron tasas a pesar de la autorización judicial. El tiempo medio para la ejecución de los actos procesales (23 días) superó sustancialmente el tiempo para la concesión de la prestación (7 días). Los datos cualitativos identificaron tres dimensiones de deficiencias: fallos en la aplicación por parte de los auxiliares judiciales, falta de uniformidad entre las instituciones públicas y asimetrías de información. Estos hallazgos sugieren que las exenciones de tasas funcionan como garantías incompletas que requieren reformas institucionales complementarias.

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Metrics

Estadísticas globales

17 Visualizaciones	18 Descargas
35 Total

Citas

Abel, L. K., and Vignola, S., 2010. Economic and other benefits associated with the provision of civil legal aid. Seattle Journal for Social Justice, 9(1), 139–167.

Auerbach, C. F., and Silverstein, L. B., 2003. Qualitative data: An introduction to coding and analysis. New York University Press.

Bazeley, P., 2018. Integrating analyses in mixed methods research [online]. London: Sage. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526417190 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526417190

Berger, R., 2015. Now I see it, now I don’t: Researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative research. Qualitative Research [online], 15(2), 219–234. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794112468475 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794112468475

Bocardo, A., Martínez, J. J., and Valenzuela, M. J., 2019. Medir para decidir: Encuestas de necesidades jurídicas y políticas públicas de acceso a la justicia. Santiago: Centro de Estudios de Justicia de las Américas (CEJA).

Brinks, D. M., Levitsky, S., and Murillo, M. V., 2019. Understanding institutional weakness: Power and design in Latin American institutions [online]. Cambridge University Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108772211 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108772211

Brinks, D. M., Levitsky, S., and Murillo, M. V., eds., 2020. The politics of institutional weakness in Latin America [online]. Cambridge University Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108776608 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108776608

Cappelletti, M., and Garth, B., 1978. Access to justice: a world survey. Milan: Giuffrè.

Chávez Chávez, E. A., 2021. Derecho procesal orgánico y funcional. 8th ed. Santiago: Tolufex.

Corbin, J., and Morse, J. M., 2003. The unstructured interactive interview: issues of reciprocity and risks when dealing with sensitive topics. Qualitative Inquiry [online], 9(3), 335–354. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800403009003001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800403009003001

Couture, E., 1942. Fundamentos de derecho procesal civil. Buenos Aires: Depalma.

Creswell, J. W. 2009. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Creswell, J. W., and Plano Clark, V. L., 2017. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

European Convention on Human Rights, art. 6.

Ewick, P., and Silbey, S. S. 1998. The common place of law: Stories from everyday life [online]. University of Chicago Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226212708.001.0001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226212708.001.0001

Fetters, M. D., Curry, L. A., and Creswell, J. W., 2013. Achieving integration in mixed methods designs—Principles and practices. Health Services Research [online], 48(6), 2134–2156. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12117 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12117

Florida Bar Foundation, 2017. Study finds civil legal aid yields seven-fold return on investment. Disponible en: fundingfla.org.

Galanter, M., 1974. Why the “haves” come out ahead: Speculations on the limits of legal change. Law & Society Review [online], 9(1), 95–160. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/3053023 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3053023

García Pino, G., Contreras Vásquez, P., and Martínez Placencia, V., 2014. Diccionario Constitucional: Cuadernos del Tribunal Constitucional N°55. Santiago.

Genn, H., 2010. Judging civil justice [online]. Cambridge University Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139192378 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139192378

González Postigo, L., Bocardo, A., and Echegoyemberry, N., 2025. Necesidades jurídicas insatisfechas en Iberoamérica. Valencia: Tirant lo Blanch.

Guest, G., Bunce, A., and Johnson, L., 2006. How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods [online], 18(1), 59–82. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903

Halliday, S., and Morgan, B., 2013. I fought the law and the law won? Legal consciousness and the critical imagination. Current Legal Problems [online], 66(1), 1–32. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/clp/cut002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/clp/cut002

Hennink, M. M., Kaiser, B. N., and Marconi, V. C., 2017. Code saturation versus meaning saturation: how many interviews are enough? Qualitative Health Research [online], 27(4), 591–608. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316665344 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316665344

Hunter, I., 2011. La iniciativa probatoria del juez y la igualdad de armas en el proyecto de Código Procesal Civil. Ius et Praxis [online], 17(2), 53–76. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-00122011000200004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-00122011000200004

Kritzer, H. M., 2010. The antecedents of disputes: complaining and claiming. Oñati Socio-Legal Series [online], 1(6), 1–17. Available at: https://opo.iisj.net/index.php/osls/article/view/53

La Rota Uprimny, M. E., et al., 2014. Ante la justicia: Necesidades jurídicas y acceso a la justicia en Colombia. Bogotá: Dejusticia. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.16192252

Lipsky, M., 2010. Street-level bureaucracy: dilemmas of the individual in public service. 30th Anniversary Expanded ed. New York: Russell Sage.

Moorhead, R., and Pleasence, P., 2003. Access to justice after universalism: Introduction. Journal of Law and Society [online], 30(1), 1–10. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6478.00242 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6478.00242

OECD, 2019. Equal access to justice for inclusive growth. Paris: OECD.

Pásara, L., 2014. Una reforma imposible: La justicia latinoamericana en el banquillo [online]. Lima: Fondo Editorial PUCP. Available at: https://doi.org/10.18800/9786124146749 DOI: https://doi.org/10.18800/9786124146749

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art. 14.1.

Pleasence, P., and Balmer, N. J., 2014. How people resolve ‘legal’ problems. Cambridge: Legal Services Board.

Rhode, D. L., 2004. Access to justice. Oxford University Press.

Rhode, D. L., Eaton, K., and Porto, A., 2018. Access to justice through limited legal assistance. Northwestern Journal of Human Rights, 16(1), 1–22.

Rodríguez-Garavito, C., 2011. Beyond the courtroom: the impact of judicial activism on socioeconomic rights in Latin America. Texas Law Review, 89, 1669–1698.

Sandefur, R. L., 2014. Accessing justice in the contemporary USA: Findings from the community needs and services study [online]. American Bar Foundation. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2478040 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2478040

Suchman, M. C., and Mertz, E., 2010. Toward a new legal empiricism: Empirical legal studies and new legal realism. Annual Review of Law and Social Science [online], 6, 555–579. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.093008.131617 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.093008.131617

Tashakkori, A., and Teddlie, C., 2010. Sage handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research [online]. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506335193 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506335193

Thornburg, E. G., 2008. The managerial judge goes to trial. University of Richmond Law Review, 44, 1261–1298.

UNODC and UNDP, 2016. Global study on legal aid: global report. Vienna: UNODC.

Vargas, M., and Fuentes, C., 2017. Introducción al derecho procesal. Santiago: DER.

World Bank, 2020. A tool for justice: The cost–benefit analysis of legal aid. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

World Justice Project, 2019. Measuring the justice gap. Washington, D.C.: WJP.