Of how to read this document
This section establishes the rules that order the reading of the constitutional document when a case admits more than one interpretation. The rules apply in the order in which they are stated here. Their purpose is to preserve the coherence of the document when the articles appear to admit divergent readings.
The rules of interpretation are incorporated into the constitutional body as a complementary section. Their modification requires the procedure of Article IV.
First rule · Hierarchy of the principles
When two articles of the document produce incompatible requirements for an operational case, the article of lower numeration prevails. This rule reflects the decision to order the document from its foundational principles toward its derived mechanisms.
The rule admits two express exceptions:
First exception. Article V (civic safety) prevails over all other articles. When the publication of an observation, the verification of an identity, or any other operational act could compromise the physical, legal or reputational safety of a person, Article V governs the decision without consideration of the article of lower numeration that might oppose it.
Second exception. Article XII (financial transparency) prevails over Article X (algorithmic agency) regarding public reporting. No operational parameter of the algorithmic agents may remain confidential when its publication is necessary for the annual external audit.
Second rule · Linguistic concordance
The document is published simultaneously in Spanish and English. Both versions are authentic. When an expression admits translations that produce different interpretations, the Spanish version prevails by being the official language of the city where Alerta is constituted.
Future versions in Quechua, Aymara and other languages of the territories where the protocol is adopted will be equally authentic within their respective territorial scopes. Their authenticity does not extend their prevalence to the territorial scope of the Spanish and English versions.
Third rule · Operational definitions
The terms defined in the definitions section are understood to be used in the sense established there when they appear in the constitutional body. Their colloquial use on other surfaces of the system yields to the constitutional definition when the context involves an obligation, a faculty or a procedure of the document.
When the document uses a term that does not appear defined, it is understood to be used in its common meaning in contemporary Spanish or, when the body is in English, in its common meaning in contemporary English.
Fourth rule · Silence of the document
When the document does not regulate a specific case, the chambers constituted in accordance with Article IV deliberate on the case and produce a binding decision. The decision is published in the registry of institutional agreements and remains subject to future formalization through constitutional amendment when the frequency or gravity of the case justifies it.
The silence of the document does not authorize the editorial team, the Treasury or any other operational body to produce binding rules in the absence of tricameral pronouncement. Urgent operational acts that do not admit waiting are subject to the procedure of emergency provisions.
Fifth rule · Conflict with positive law
When a provision of the document enters into conflict with a current norm of Peruvian law or of the territorial jurisdiction where Alerta operates, the norm of positive law prevails within the scope of its application. The document retains its force in all aspects not affected by the conflict.
The detection of a persistent conflict activates the modification procedure of Article IV or, when the conflict affects a foundational principle, the orderly dissolution procedure of Article XIV. Those who govern Alerta do not permit the institution to operate contrary to applicable positive law.
Sixth rule · Interpretive reserve of the chambers
Interpretive controversies on the constitutional document are the exclusive competence of the three chambers meeting in accordance with Article IV. The tricameral interpretation is recorded in the public file and produces binding effect for subsequent operational cases.
The editorial team may consult the chambers before applying an interpretation when the case admits divergent readings. The consultation is not mandatory for routine cases. The consultation is mandatory when the case could establish an operational precedent for similar cases.