🔹 1. Constitutional Framework of Argentina

The Constitution of Argentina establishes:

• A federal system (provinces + national government)
• A written constitution with supremacy (Article 31)
• Judicial review powers vested in courts

👉 Argentina follows a diffuse model of judicial review, meaning:

• All courts can review constitutionality
• Final authority lies with the Supreme Court

🔹 2. Nature of Judicial Review in Argentina

(a) Diffuse System

Similar to the U.S.:

• Any judge can declare a law unconstitutional
• No separate constitutional court

(b) Concrete Review

• Courts act only when a real case is brought
• No abstract review (generally)

(c) Effects of Judgments

• Usually inter partes (between parties)
• But Supreme Court decisions have strong persuasive authority

🔹 3. Judicial Federalism in Argentina

Judicial federalism refers to the division of judicial power between national and provincial courts.

Structure:

• Federal Courts → Deal with national laws, federal issues
• Provincial Courts → Deal with local matters

Key Features:

• Provinces retain judicial autonomy
• Supreme Court ensures uniformity of constitutional interpretation
• Conflicts resolved through federal judicial hierarchy

🔹 4. Landmark Case Laws (At least 6)

1. Sojo v. National Government

Issue: Scope of judicial review

Held:
✔ Established power of courts to review constitutionality

Principle:
👉 Early recognition of judicial supremacy

2. Municipality of Avellaneda v. Elortondo

Issue: Constitutionality of municipal taxation

Held:
✔ Courts can invalidate unconstitutional laws

Principle:
👉 Reinforced diffuse judicial review

3. Siri Case

Issue: Protection of constitutional rights without explicit remedy

Held:
✔ Created the “amparo” remedy

Principle:
👉 Courts can innovate remedies to protect rights

4. Kot Case

Issue: Expansion of amparo

Held:
✔ Extended protection against private actors

Principle:
👉 Judicial review applies beyond state action

5. Peralta v. National Government

Issue: Emergency economic measures

Held:
✔ Court upheld government action

Principle:
👉 Judicial deference during economic emergencies

6. Simón v. Argentina

Issue: Amnesty laws for dictatorship-era crimes

Held:
✔ Laws declared unconstitutional

Principle:
👉 Human rights override legislative immunity

7. Halabi v. National Executive

Issue: Collective rights and standing

Held:
✔ Recognized collective actions (class actions)

Principle:
👉 Expanded access to constitutional justice

🔹 5. Key Doctrines Developed

(1) Supremacy of Constitution

• Constitution overrides all laws
• Courts ensure enforcement

(2) Diffuse Judicial Review

• Every judge is a constitutional judge
• Supreme Court provides final interpretation

(3) Amparo Doctrine

• Fast remedy for fundamental rights
• Comparable to writ jurisdiction in India

(4) Judicial Federal Balance

• Provinces retain autonomy
• Federal courts ensure uniformity

(5) Emergency Powers Doctrine

• Courts may defer to executive in crises
• But not at the cost of fundamental rights

🔹 6. Challenges in Practice

• Tension between federal and provincial courts
• Risk of inconsistent interpretations
• Political pressure on judiciary
• Balancing judicial activism vs restraint

🔹 7. Comparative Insight

🔹 8. Conclusion

Argentina presents a unique blend of judicial review and federalism where:

• Courts actively protect constitutional supremacy
• Federal structure allows local autonomy + national coherence
• Innovative remedies like amparo strengthen rights protection

👉 The system reflects a balance between:

• Judicial authority
• Federal diversity
• Constitutional supremacy