Doctrina, precedente y exhortación vinculante: ¿En qué quedamos?

Welcome to the grand premiere of The Dumet Lecture on Legally Speaking! 🎙️ 🏛️ In this first episode, Dr. David Dumet dissects one of the most fascinating and complex issues facing the Constitutional Court of Peru: the tension at the legal boundary between Binding Precedent and Jurisprudential Doctrine. Through a visual and detailed analysis, we will discover why the difference between these two concepts is not merely terminological, but a profound matter of guarantees and methodology. Is the Constitutional Court respecting its own rules or crossing methodological lines? In this episode, we will analyze: ⚖️ The Ideal Theory: The key differences between the "Express Rule" of precedent and the "Evolutionary Criterion" of doctrine. 📈 Artificial Expansion (2017): The Ruelas Noa case and how a "Doctrine by Decree" was created in a single ruling, without the necessary prior reiteration. 🔒 Undue Restriction (2022): Case No. 00949-2022 and the "excessive rigor" in requiring total factual identity to apply a doctrine, treating it with the same rigidity as a precedent. The inconsistency between these cases demonstrates that the methodological boundary between both concepts is not yet fully established in the practice of our Constitutional Court. 📌 Don't miss any episodes of The Dumet Lecture Series! If you want to delve deeper into constitutional law and stay up-to-date with new legal trends, SUBSCRIBE to the channel, hit the bell icon 🔔 so you don't miss our next videos, and leave us a comment: Do you think the Constitutional Court should reconsider how it applies established case law? 👉 Follow us on our social media for more content