Notas sobre el sentido y alcance del Numeral 5 del Artículo 6 de la Ley Orgánica de Amparo sobre Derechos y Garantías Constitucionales venezolanas

this article maintains that what is essential about article 27 in the constitution of the bolivarian republic of venezuela is not concerned with subsidiarity, but rather with the entity of constitutional right or guarantee that is protected; so that if said right or guarantee is able to be protected in another jurisdiction, opening the constitutional channel is not justified. if this is so, multiple protections (ordinary, contentious-administrative or constitutional) do not convert the guarantee into a subsidiary action. the guarantee, according to article 27, is a specific constitutional guarantee (therefore principal, not subsidiary nor extraordinary) and ordinary or administrative prejudicialness is justified only due to the protective character that any judge should offer to constitutional rights, since all judges are constitutional. in this way, subsidiarity becomes constitutional discretion. this is the access line to the guarantee and not the subsidiarity, which has a very formalistic stamp (an aftertaste from the organic law of guarantee) and must be overcome in order to be faithful to article 27 of the constitution of the bolivarian republic of venezuela.