Proscripción de la corrupción como norma-principio de rango constitucional: alcances, ponderación y límites en el acceso a la función pública

Abstract

This article examines how Peruvian case law interprets and applies the prohibition against corruption, treating it as an implicit principle of constitutional stature. It also focuses on the conflict that arises when individuals convicted of corruption offenses seek to return to public service after completing their sentences, while simultaneously facing the mandate for social reintegration. According to various rulings by the Constitutional Court, this principle derives from a combined interpretation of Articles 39, 41, 43, and 44 of the Constitution. It is recognized as having an implicit character, a broad scope applicable to all state entities, and a nature that affects various categories of constitutionally protected interests. The primary challenge stems from the lack of a clear, predictable standard to resolve the clash between safeguarding integrity in public service and ensuring the social reintegration of rehabilitated individuals. Although the function of the penitentiary system is to re-educate, rehabilitate, and reintegrate, administrative regulations continue to impose limits that can bar access to public office even after a sentence has been fully served. To address this issue, the article proposes adopting a rational balancing criterion based on five points: strictly applying the principle of proportionality, respecting Inter-American standards, requiring heightened justification for restrictions, placing special emphasis on the constitutional "right to be forgotten," and avoiding any form of permanent stigmatization. The study concludes that combating corruption is both a constitutional and international obligation, yet it rejects the imposition of automatic, indefinite restrictions; limitations must be concrete, tailored to the specific case, and balanced against the goals of social reintegration and the protection of public service integrity.