I.

INTRODUCTION
1.1 Problem Statement
1.1.1 Characterization of the Problem
The administration of justice in a phenomenon, present in all the
states of the planet, within which there is a series of similar
problems in its majority, such as, for example, the delay of the
processes, the delayed decision of the jurisdictional organs and
the deficient quality of many judicial resolutions (Ladrón de
Guevara, 2010). For its part in Latin America, according to Carrillo
Flórez (2010), a sense of discomfort is projected, and even,
sometimes, of failure. The countries in which the balance is
positive are the least, to the point that it is often replaced if it is
worthwhile to reform justice, in terms of the development of
democracy and the reduction of poverty in the region.
The problem that surrounds the legal value of judgments in Peru,
is rooted in that this is not considered as the main source of law,
but rather is replaced by the law, which is considered the main
source of the law. Peruvian law, according to the constitution of
our republic, the solution to be proposed and defended is to
establish as the first source of law in Peru, the judicial decision,
and then the law, thereby not compromise the independence of
judges, as with the last one, but rather, we would allow judges to
evaluate their sentences and combine them with the general
principles of law.
Likewise, regarding the local area, it is known that the main
problems of the administration of justice in our Lambayeque region
are: procedural overload and sustained increase in it; isolated acts
of corruption; and the work problems of the staff. (SILVA, 2011).
As noted, the issue of administration of justice is a phenomenon of
interest, addressed in different contexts of space and time, that is
why when examining the judgments of the judicial process existing
in file N ° 01075-2013-0-0501- JR-CI-02, followed by Nuñez
Conde Héctor and the Regional Health Directorate Ayacucho, on:
Contentious Administrative Action, sentenced in the First Instance
by the Sixth Specialized Labor Court of Chiclayo, which declared:
The complaint was based; and in Second Instance, the Joint
Transitory Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of
Lambayeque, resolved: Confirm the judgment of the First
Instance; This finding, aroused the interest to study the decisions
adopted in the concrete case, especially by what is said of Peru in
matters of administration of justice, but the one that has marked
 the beginning of the present investigation, is the following
statement:
1.1.2. Problem statement:
What is the quality of first and second instance judgments, on the
Contentious Administrative Process, according to the pertinent
normative, doctrinal and jurisprudential parameters, in File N °
800-2011, of the Judicial District of Lambayeque - Chiclayo, 2013?
As you can see, it is a question that deserves to be understood,
that is why we give an answer to the question that is divided into
the questions, as follows:
Sub research questions:
1.1.2.1. Does the sentence under study show a relevant
heading?
1.1.2.2. In the judgments under study, the claims of the
parties are resolved based on the points at issue? Proven in
the process?
1.1.2.3. Does the sentence under study, the evidence a
relevant motivation of the facts and the assessment of the
evidence?
1.1.2.4. The sentence under study, a relevant proof of the
applied law?
1.1.2.5. Does the judgment under study show the pertinent
application of the jurisprudence related to the case?
1.1.2.6. Does the judgment under study show the pertinent
application of the doctrine related to the case?
1.1.2.7. Does the judgment under study prove the
application of the Principle of Procedural Congruity?
1.1.2.8. Does the judgment under study adequately
evidence the object of the challenge or consultation?
1.1.2.9. Does the judgment under study present the
decision in a relevant manner?
As can be seen, they are questions extracted from a specific context: The
judicial process contained in the assigned file. Then, to answer the central
question or research problem; we have drawn a: General objective; and for the
sub research questions we have also traced: Specific objectives. As follows:

1.2. Research objectives.

 1.2.1. General purpose.
Determine the quality of the first and second instance judgments,
on the Contentious Administrative Process, according to the
pertinent normative, doctrinal and jurisprudential parameters, in
the File N ° 800-2011, of the Judicial District of Lambayeque -
Chiclayo, 2013.

1.2.2. Specific objectives.

1.2.2.1. Determine if in the judgments under study,
evidence a relevant heading.
1.2.2.2. Determine if in the judgments under study, the
claims of the parties are resolved based on the
controversial points tested in the process.
1.2.2.3. Determine if in the judgments under study,
evidence of a relevant motivation on the facts and the
evaluation of the evidence.
1.2.2.4. Determine if the judgments under study show a
relevant motivation of the applied law.
1.2.2.5. Determine if in the judgments under study,
evidence relevant application of the jurisprudence related to
the case.
1.2.2.6. Determine if in the judgments under study, they
demonstrate the pertinent application of the doctrine related
to the case.
1.2.2.7. Determine if in the judgments under study,
evidence relevant application of the Principle of
Congruence
1.2.2.8. Determine if in the judgments under study, they
demonstrate pertinently the object of the challenge.
1.2.2.9. Determine if the judgments under study present the
decision in a relevant manner.

1.3. Justification of the investigation

This research proposal is justified, because it starts from the deep
observation applied in the national and local reality in which it is evident
that society claims -justice‖, an expression that can be translated into a
request for immediate intervention by the authorities in front of to facts
that day after day disrupt the legal and social order, generating anxiety
and discouragement not only in the victims of acts, which increasingly
adopt different and unthinkable modalities, but also in society as a whole,
probably generating a current of opinion not necessarily favorable in
relation to the issue of trust in the administration of justice.
It is a modest work that follows from a research proposal designed at the
Catholic ULADECH, which demonstrates the institutional effort that
comprises us, is aimed at sensitizing those responsible for the direction,
conduct, development, evaluation and administration of justice , in its
jurisdictional part, because the results will reveal aspects in which the
operators of the justice have put greater effort, and very probably, also,
omissions or insufficiencies. Being, what results to obtain, can be used
and converted into basic foundations to design and sustain proposals for
improvement in the quality of judicial decisions whose reception and
application by stakeholders can be an answer to mitigate the needs of
justice, that lately a large part of the Peruvian social sector is asking for
great voices, attitudes that are observed not only in front of the
establishments destined for the administration of justice, but also that
they are informed in the various media.
The dissemination of the results will serve to motivate those who have
links to justice issues: authorities, professionals, law students, and
society in general.

For its immediate purpose, will be oriented to build legal knowledge

articulating theory and practice; while for its mediate purpose, it is
oriented to contribute to the transformation of the administration of
Justice in Peru, from the analysis of a sentence that has put an end to a
certain conflict.
Its methodological contribution is based on its structure and the logical
order of the procedures that will be used to answer the research
question. In addition, it can be adapted to analyze other judgments of a
civil, criminal, constitutional and administrative contentious nature.
Finally, it has a constitutional basis, because it is a way of making the
abstract right provided for in paragraph 20 of article 139 of the Political
Constitution of the State that establishes: every person can formulate
analysis and criticism of judicial resolutions and sentences, with the
limitations Of law.