Difference Between Trust-Based and Technical Public Officers in Bolivia

Legal Importance of Distinguishing Public Functions

Correctly identifying the type of public officer determines the scope of labor rights within the public sector. If the public servant performs trust-based functions, removal may occur without job stability. By contrast, if the servant performs technical functions, they are entitled to constitutional protection against dismissal. In this regard, constitutional case law has consolidated an essential rule: the true nature of the functions prevails over the title of the position.

Incorrect Interpretation of Positions in Public Administration

In institutional practice, an incorrect interpretation has become widespread, consisting of:

• Classifying positions as freely appointed.
• Automatically assuming they are trust-based.
• Proceeding with dismissal without a functional analysis.

Constitutional Decision 1146/2025-S2 challenges this approach and establishes that the form of appointment does not, by itself, determine the nature of the position. It is essential to analyze the specific functions carried out by the public servant.

Trust-Based Public Officer: Legal Characteristics

According to constitutional case law, a trust-based public officer is one who maintains a direct relationship with the authority and participates in institutional leadership.

Its main characteristics include:

• Participation in strategic decision-making.
• Performance of management or command functions.
• Representation of the authority.
• Involvement in personnel management.
• Direct influence on institutional administration.

In these cases, permanence in the position depends on the authority’s trust, which allows removal without job stability.

Technical Public Officer: Nature and Protection

Constitutional Decision 1146/2025-S2 introduces a key clarification by recognizing that there are freely appointed public servants who are not trust-based public officers.

This includes those who:

• Prepare technical or legal reports.
• Provide specialized advice.
• Perform administrative or technical tasks.
• Follow instructions without decision-making authority.
• Do not exercise institutional representation.

Since there is no decision-making power or management function, these public servants are protected by job stability and cannot be removed at discretion.

The Determining Criterion: Actual Functions of the Position

One of the most relevant contributions of Constitutional Decision 1146/2025-S2 is the application of the principle of primacy of reality.

This principle means that:

• The title of the position is not conclusive.
• The form of hiring does not define the labor relationship.
• What matters is the substantive content of the functions.

Thus, a public servant titled as an “advisor” or “consultant” cannot automatically be considered a trust-based public officer if their functions are merely technical.

Case Reviewed by the Constitutional Court

In the case decided through Constitutional Decision 1146/2025-S2, the situation of public servants performing technical advisory functions was assessed.

It was established that they:

• Prepared reports.
• Provided legal support.
• Did not make institutional decisions.

The public entity argued that they were freely appointed officers and therefore trust-based. However, the Court concluded that the exercise of management and representation functions had not been proven, recognizing a violation of the right to job stability.

Burden of Proof in Dismissal Cases

Constitutional Decision 1146/2025-S2 also defines the burden of proof in these cases.

It is the responsibility of the public entity to prove that the public servant:

• Performed trust-based functions.
• Had decision-making power.
• Played a strategic role.

A simple reference to the freely appointed nature of the position is insufficient to justify dismissal.

In summary, the difference between a trust-based public officer and a technical public officer lies in the level of decision-making, leadership, and institutional representation within the entity. While the former is based on a relationship of confidence that allows discretionary removal, the latter is protected by labor guarantees that prevent arbitrary dismissal. Constitutional Decision 1146/2025-S2 reaffirms that the analysis must focus on the functions actually performed, which makes it possible to legally challenge many dismissals in the public sector.