On November of 2018 the Supreme Court of Chile ordered the State to finance an expensive medical treatment for a child who had a rare disease. The medical treatment was not listed among the ones that, by law, the State must finance; but the Supreme Court argued that not financing the treatment was a violation to the right to life and physical and mental integrity of the child. Cases like this are commonly criticized arguing that, by not applying the legislation, the judges violate the separation of powers: they create a public policy and decide a financial issue that concerns to the Congress and the Government. But the separation of powers is a general principle that is insufficient to tackle this kind of problems. In this paper I argue that there are other categories required by the Rule of Law useful to approach these problems, for example, the institutional capacity of the courts. To conclude the previous, I analyze the sentence of the Supreme Court and identify its main tensions.