Unconstitutionality: obvious and evident

My constitutional assessment of why the court should resolve the unconstitutionality of Law 406/2023. The Court, the highest judicial body and guardian of the integrity of the constitutional texts in our country, within the framework of the Request for determination of unconstitutionality submitted by Mr. Juan Ramón Sevillanoagainst the aforementioned law that approved the mining contract between the state Panamanian and Minera Panama S,A., will have no other option but to solve it in this way, that is, to judge that it is unconstitutional.

Panamanians still keep a certain dose credibility in court and it is bet that they will not have any obstacles to declare unconstitutional such a pernicious instrument which is declared shameful and unworthy before the national face and which, at the same time, exposes the corruption that undermines the moral structure of the Motherland and its principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity, destroying and playing, left and right, with the right to life of all, the right to social and individual development, along with the most basic human rights of our people.

We show the whole world that our nation is a worthy nation, a defender of its rights, virtuous in its protests and demands, a defender of sovereignty and independence. That the detractors of our country will have to look for corruption in other corners, in other rooms, but less in the rooms that the patriotic poet refers to, those rooms of “the poor, with barefoot children, rooms where the sun shines. it does not enter because “the sun is aristocratic”. Our people, our youth, First of all, it is the evaluation of the fight for honesty and true love for the homeland.

When presenting his arguments promoting the claim of unconstitutionality he made instructed lawyer, Juan Ramón Sevillano, I will mention elementary questions and what I will go into details. It is worth noting that the same elements that the Supreme Court of Justice used to declare unconstitutional Law 9 of 1997, the law that approved the contract signed between
Ministry of Commerce and Industries and the company Minera Petaquilla S,A.recently published in Official Gazette No. 24439 of December 22, 2021. I repeat, these same arguments become very valid arguments and elements, and on the basis of them the unconstitutionality of the said Act 406 is declared.

As things stand, it is clear that Lawyer Rigoberto González, knew, with good legal sense, to warn about it. And this is expressed in the question of the two ministers of trade and industry, the former from this administration and the current one, who upon receiving the answer to the question asked the attorney general not to publish the said answer and to keep it confidential under the pretext of preserving the legal process.

What were they talking about? Instead of that, The lawyer did not file a report against them, which is appropriate, for abuse of authority and overstepping of functions and failure to fulfill the duties inherent in the position. What impudence!

The ruling on unconstitutionality that he declared Supreme Court of Justice On December 21, 2017, he categorically and clearly pointed out that National Assembly of Deputies failed to fulfill its mission to be a watchdog and watchdog that when approving or rejecting a legal contract, especially as in this case, where the central subject of the contract is our national wealth, our natural mining resources, The Assembly had to thoroughly examine whether the legal procedure i constitutional procedures were satisfied or to not approve the said contract.

On that occasion, the court clearly concluded that the subject of this contract had to be submitted to a public bidding process, which was never carried out, and therefore National Assembly of Deputies, starting with his commission Trade and economic affairs and then at the Plenary Assembly to give consent to the contract that was born as an orphan in the cradle, given that, I repeat, this public bidding process has not been satisfied.

Now I must also point out that Article 1 of Act 406 of 2023 is such a comprehensive and broad article that it nevertheless contains major violations and violations of our constitution. To that extent, the mentioned article refers to the fact that it uses the environmental impact study from 2011 as a basis, when that environmental impact study was also declared unconstitutional by the declaration from 2017. Supreme Court of Justice, Namely, for that new contract – law, a new Environmental Impact Study was not even done by the competent authorities in that case. (Ministry of my environment) he was able to make an updated study of the damages and great losses that have occurred as a result of illegal exploration and exploitation of large areas of land on our Isthmus of Panama.

It is unconstitutional because: It surrenders our sovereignty, disparages our integrity as a nation and our nationality; because it delivers goods that cannot be negotiated or privatized in any way (sea depths, docks, ports, etc.); because it destroys our ecological system or environment (Repeated violations in all its clauses of our constitutional ecological regime); because it destroys our rivers and our hydrographic basins (Mesoamerican Biological Corridor); because it tramples on human rights and the right to a healthy and dignified environment; because he left out the public tender, so various proponents intervened or participated; because he did not respect the best interests of the state; because it cedes our sovereignty to the states or
foreign nations. For these and a thousand other reasons. God bless the country!