La discrecionalidad administrativa en la contratación estatal colombiana: riesgos de arbitrariedad y afectación a la transparencia e imparcialidad
Cargando...
Fecha
2026
Autores
Silva Manchego, Jenniffer Fabiana
Amado Nuñez, José Carlos
Contreras Ortega, Yenny
Título de la revista
ISSN de la revista
Título del volumen
Editor
Ediciones Universidad Simón Bolívar
Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Sociales
Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Sociales
Resumen
El presente trabajo de investigación aborda la discrecionalidad administrativa desde el escenario de la contratación estatal, dentro del marco del Estado Social de Derecho Colombiano, en la medida que la discrecionalidad administrativa adquiere una relevancia particular, pues toda actuación estatal debe orientarse a la garantía efectiva de los derechos fundamentales y a la protección del interés general. En Colombia, la Constitución Política de 1991 estableció un modelo de administración pública sometido a controles estrictos, en el cual la discrecionalidad debe ejercerse dentro de parámetros constitucionales claramente definidos.
De acuerdo con los postulados constitucionales, la discrecionalidad administrativa surge como una potestad necesaria que permite a las entidades públicas adoptar decisiones dentro de los márgenes establecidos por el ordenamiento jurídico. Sin embargo, en el ámbito de la contratación estatal, el ejercicio inadecuado de dicha discrecionalidad ha generado riesgos de arbitrariedad, desviación de poder y afectación de principios fundamentales como la transparencia, la imparcialidad y la selección objetiva.
Desde esa concepción, se concibe que, la discrecionalidad administrativa no puede ser entendida como un ámbito de libertad absoluta de la administración, sino como una potestad jurídicamente reglada, sometida a límites normativos y principios constitucionales. De esta manera, se concibe que, los criterios interpretativos propuestos, motivación reforzada, proporcionalidad, transparencia, selección objetiva y control judicial, no solo se encuentran respaldados por la doctrina y la jurisprudencia, sino que contribuyen a consolidar un modelo de discrecionalidad administrativa controlada, acorde con los principios del Estado Social de Derecho y especialmente relevante en el ámbito de la contratación estatal.
This research paper addresses administrative discretion within the context of public procurement, under the framework of the Colombian Social Rule of Law. Administrative discretion is particularly relevant in this context, as all state action must be geared towards the effective guarantee of fundamental rights and the protection of the public interest. In Colombia, the 1991 Political Constitution established a model of public administration subject to strict controls, in which discretion must be exercised within clearly defined constitutional parameters. According to constitutional principles, administrative discretion arises as a necessary power that allows public entities to make decisions within the limits established by the legal system. However, in the area of public procurement, the improper exercise of this discretion has generated risks of arbitrariness, abuse of power, and infringement of fundamental principles such as transparency, impartiality, and objective selection. From this perspective, administrative discretion cannot be understood as an area of absolute freedom for the administration, but rather as a legally regulated power, subject to normative limits and constitutional principles. Thus, the proposed interpretative criteria—enhanced justification, proportionality, transparency, objective selection, and judicial review—are not only supported by legal doctrine and jurisprudence, but also contribute to consolidating a model of controlled administrative discretion, consistent with the principles of the Social Rule of Law and especially relevant in the area of public procurement.
This research paper addresses administrative discretion within the context of public procurement, under the framework of the Colombian Social Rule of Law. Administrative discretion is particularly relevant in this context, as all state action must be geared towards the effective guarantee of fundamental rights and the protection of the public interest. In Colombia, the 1991 Political Constitution established a model of public administration subject to strict controls, in which discretion must be exercised within clearly defined constitutional parameters. According to constitutional principles, administrative discretion arises as a necessary power that allows public entities to make decisions within the limits established by the legal system. However, in the area of public procurement, the improper exercise of this discretion has generated risks of arbitrariness, abuse of power, and infringement of fundamental principles such as transparency, impartiality, and objective selection. From this perspective, administrative discretion cannot be understood as an area of absolute freedom for the administration, but rather as a legally regulated power, subject to normative limits and constitutional principles. Thus, the proposed interpretative criteria—enhanced justification, proportionality, transparency, objective selection, and judicial review—are not only supported by legal doctrine and jurisprudence, but also contribute to consolidating a model of controlled administrative discretion, consistent with the principles of the Social Rule of Law and especially relevant in the area of public procurement.
Descripción
Tabla de contenidos
Palabras clave
Contratación, Discrecionalidad, Estado, Pública, Transparencia
