REGULATIONS

SUPREME DECREE No. 012-2026-MINEDU

Criteria established for prioritizing and scheduling the payment of final judicial judgments at the enforcement stage within the Education sector

Supreme Decree No. 012-2026-MINEDU established criteria for prioritizing the payment of obligations arising from final and enforceable judicial judgments, within the available budgetary resources. The regulation is relevant for creditors who already have a final judicial decision, as it establishes the criteria that will determine the order in which such obligations will be addressed by the Education sector.

The regulation is particularly relevant for creditors holding a final judicial decision, as it clarifies that obtaining a favorable judgment does not, by itself, result in the immediate payment of the obligation. Enforcement remains subject to the corresponding enforcement stage and to the budgetary prioritization and scheduling mechanisms established under the applicable regulations.

Accordingly, the decree establishes a framework for the progressive enforcement of final judicial judgments within the Education sector, in accordance with the established criteria and budgetary availability.

ADMINISTRATIVE RESOLUTION No. 000084-2026-P-CE-PJ

New specialized subsystem against extortion established in La Libertad

Administrative Resolution No. 000084-2026-P-CE-PJ, published on August 18, 2026, implements the Specialized Subsystem against Extortion and Related Offenses in La Libertad. The measure establishes three Pretrial Investigation Courts, two Collegiate Criminal Courts, and a Criminal Appeals Chamber specialized in these matters in Trujillo. It also provides for the redistribution of extortion and related offense cases according to their procedural stage.

Cases that are already at the enforcement stage will not be redistributed and will remain under the jurisdiction of the court currently handling them. Likewise, cases in which hearings have already commenced will remain with the court of origin in order to prevent procedural disruption and ensure continuity.

ADMINISTRATIVE RESOLUTION No. 000288-2026-CE-PJ

Implementation of oral proceedings in family cases

Administrative Resolution No. 000288-2026-CE-PJ, published on August 21, ordered the implementation of the Corporate Family Court Module at the Specialized Family Court of Puente Piedra of the Superior Court of Justice of Puente Piedra–Ventanilla, effective August 25, 2026.

The measure incorporated this judicial body into the Pilot Project for Oral Proceedings in Judicial Cases involving Custody and Visitation Rights, with the aim of achieving faster, more immediate, flexible, and streamlined proceedings, while strengthening conciliation and improving the conduct of hearings.

It also established a corporate judicial administration model, with judicial, administrative, and multidisciplinary teams, as well as mechanisms for monitoring and evaluating its operation. Accordingly, the Superior Court must adapt its organization and resources to implement the new model.

CASE LAW

Supreme Court sets limits for declaring procedural abandonment

Cassation No. 5635-2022-Arequipa

Through Cassation No. 5635-2022-Arequipa, the Supreme Court established that the mere lapse of a four-month period of procedural inactivity does not, by itself, warrant the termination of proceedings on grounds of abandonment. For this procedural mechanism to apply, it must be established that the suspension of proceedings is attributable to the parties and that they are in a position to move the proceedings forward through the procedural mechanisms available to them.

In this regard, pursuant to Article 350, paragraph 5, of the Civil Procedure Code, abandonment does not apply when the continuation of proceedings depends on an action to be carried out by the judge, judicial officers, or another authority required to perform a procedural act.

In the case under review, the Supreme Court questioned the lower courts’ assumption that the parties were exclusively responsible for continuously advancing the proceedings until a final decision was obtained.

The Court held that such interpretation distorts the nature of procedural abandonment, as it disregards the duty of the judicial body to direct and advance the proceedings and to ensure that they are conducted in accordance with the principles of expedition, concentration, and procedural economy.

Therefore, delays attributable to the judicial body cannot be transferred to the parties through a declaration of abandonment, since this mechanism is intended to sanction procedural inactivity attributable to litigants and not every instance of delay occurring during the proceedings.

Constitutional Court defines the powers of enforcement judges vis-à-vis third parties

Case No. 00456-2024-PA/TC

Through Judgment No. 1090/2026, issued in Case No. 00456-2024-PA/TC, the Constitutional Court reaffirmed that the enforcement of a final judgment must strictly observe the limits of res judicata, both in its objective dimension — concerning the obligation or performance ordered — and in its subjective dimension — concerning the persons covered by the judicial order.

Accordingly, enforcement judges may not alter or extend the scope of a judgment to impose its enforcement upon third parties who were not parties to the original proceedings or were not included in the judgment.

In the specific case, the Constitutional Court held that the guarantee of res judicata had been violated when the enforcement judge ordered the eviction of the “current possessors,” even though the criminal judgment for fraud and unlawful occupation had been issued against specifically identified individuals.

The Court clarified that the enforcement stage cannot be used to extend the subjective effects of a judgment or impose burdens on, or affect the possession of, third parties whose property rights were neither disputed nor addressed in the original proceedings. By doing so, the enforcement judge substantially altered the judicial order, also affecting the principles of legal certainty and predictability within the justice system.

Consequently, the Constitutional Court declared the challenged resolution null and void and ordered the court of first instance to issue a new, duly reasoned resolution to enforce the criminal judgment strictly within its established scope. It also recalled that an amparo action against judicial decisions requires, as a procedural admissibility requirement, that the challenged decision be final and that it have not been accepted by the affected party, which entails the prior exhaustion of the remedies available in the underlying proceedings.

NEWS

Electronic Judicial Case File implemented for custody and visitation proceedings in Callao

The Judiciary implemented the Electronic Judicial Case File (EJE) and the Electronic Filing System (MPE) for proceedings involving custody, modification of custody, visitation rights, and modification of visitation rights before the Superior Court of Justice of Callao.

The measure covers the civil chambers and five family courts and forms part of a progressive implementation that will eventually extend to 32 Superior Courts.

Military jurisdiction and ordinary courts: criteria for determining jurisdiction clarified

Law No. 32735 clarified the concept of an offense committed in the exercise of official duties and expanded the cases that may be heard by the military-police jurisdiction, including certain actions carried out by military and police personnel in the performance of their duties, such as crime prevention and investigation, identity checks, intelligence activities, traffic enforcement, and border control.

From a litigation perspective, one of the main effects of the reform is the modification of the rules governing jurisdiction between military-police courts and ordinary courts. The law also establishes that a person may not be simultaneously prosecuted in both jurisdictions for the same facts.

The reform also raises a significant constitutional debate, insofar as it could be argued that it expands the scope of military-police jurisdiction beyond the limits traditionally established by the Constitutional Court. Under these limits, an offense committed in the exercise of official duties must be directly connected to the functions of military or police personnel and must affect a legal interest strictly related to military or police functions.

In this context, the application of the new regulation may give rise to jurisdictional disputes and challenges concerning the right to a lawful judge.