From Code to Constitution: The Constitutionalization of Artificial Intelligence in Colombia’s Case law
By Daniel Peña Valenzuela, Partner Peña Mancero Abogados
Introduction
The increasing integration of digital technologies into public administration and judicial processes has prompted constitutional courts worldwide to confront novel legal dilemmas. In Colombia, the Constitutional Court has begun to articulate a normative framework for the governance of artificial intelligence (AI) through rulings T-323 of 2024 and T-067 of 2025. These decisions do not merely regulate technological tools—they initiate a process of constitutionalization, whereby algorithmic systems and digital functionalities are interpreted through the lens of fundamental rights and democratic principles.
This article offers a descriptive and interpretive analysis of both rulings, situating them within broader debates on transparency, accountability, and the ethical deployment of AI in state functions. It also explores how these decisions reflect an emerging constitutional imagination that seeks to reconcile technological innovation with the imperatives of justice, inclusion, and institutional legitimacy.
1. Ruling T-323 of 2024: Algorithmic Opacity and the Right to Due Process
Ruling T-323 arose from a tutela action concerning the use of algorithmic decision-making in the allocation of healthcare services. The petitioner alleged that the system’s opacity and lack of explainability infringed upon their right to due process and equal treatment. In response, the Court recognized that when algorithmic tools are deployed by public entities, they acquire a quasi-institutional character and must therefore be subject to constitutional scrutiny.
The decision emphasized the imperative of algorithmic transparency, asserting that individuals affected by automated decisions must be able to understand the logic and data underpinning those outcomes. Furthermore, the Court introduced the principle of technological accountability, requiring public institutions to disclose the operational parameters of AI systems and to ensure that such systems do not perpetuate discriminatory biases.
This ruling reframes digital tools not as neutral instruments but as constitutional actors whose design and implementation must align with the values of dignity, equality, and procedural fairness. It also signals a shift in the Court’s jurisprudence toward a proactive stance on digital rights, recognizing that algorithmic governance must be subject to democratic oversight and legal guarantees.
2. Ruling T-067 of 2025: Predictive Analytics and Judicial Discretion
In T-067, the Court addressed the use of predictive analytics in pretrial detention decisions. The case raised concerns about the extent to which algorithmic risk assessments could influence judicial discretion and potentially undermine the presumption of innocence. The Court ruled that while such tools may offer efficiency gains, they must remain subordinate to constitutional guarantees and human oversight.
The ruling introduced the concept of constitutional interoperability, mandating that digital systems used within the judiciary be designed to uphold rights such as contestability, transparency, and access to effective remedies. Importantly, the Court reaffirmed that AI cannot supplant judicial reasoning, and that any technological aid must be auditable and subject to adversarial challenge.
This decision reinforces the normative boundaries within which AI may operate in legal contexts, safeguarding the integrity of judicial processes against the risks of automation and technocratic reductionism. It also reflects a broader concern with preserving the human dimension of justice, particularly in contexts where liberty and due process are at stake.
3. Theoretical and Institutional Implications
Both rulings can be interpreted through the lens of critical legal theory, which emphasizes the role of law in reproducing or challenging power structures. From a feminist or decolonial perspective, the Court’s insistence on transparency and contestability may be seen as a response to the structural asymmetries embedded in algorithmic systems—many of which are designed and deployed by private actors with limited accountability.
Moreover, the decisions raise important questions about institutional capacity. The Court implicitly calls upon public entities to develop technical expertise and regulatory frameworks capable of ensuring that AI systems comply with constitutional standards. This requires not only legal reform but also interdisciplinary collaboration between jurists, technologists, ethicists, and civil society actors.
The rulings also suggest a redefinition of constitutional subjectivity. By treating algorithmic systems as entities that must conform to constitutional norms, the Court expands the scope of constitutional law to include non-human actors and hybrid decision-making processes. This posthumanist gesture challenges traditional notions of agency and responsibility, inviting new forms of legal reasoning attuned to the complexities of digital governance.
Conclusions: Toward a Rights-Based Digital Constitutionalism
Taken together, rulings T-323 and T-067 represent a foundational moment in the constitutional governance of artificial intelligence in Colombia. By embedding digital tools within the architecture of constitutional rights, the Court advances a model of rights-based digital constitutionalism—one that demands transparency, accountability, and ethical design in the deployment of algorithmic systems.
These decisions also position Colombia as a regional reference point in the regulation of emerging technologies, offering jurisprudential guidance for other jurisdictions navigating similar challenges. More broadly, the rulings invite scholars, technologists, and policymakers to reconceptualize the role of constitutional law not merely as a reactive mechanism, but as a proactive framework for shaping the digital future in accordance with democratic values and social justice imperatives.
In doing so, the Court affirms that constitutional law must evolve in tandem with technological change, not only to protect individual rights but also to preserve the legitimacy and responsiveness of public institutions. The constitutionalization of AI is not merely a legal innovation—it is a democratic necessity.