Unconstitutional mining concession

I share, part of mine arguments before the Supreme Court As a result of the unconstitutionality claims filed against Act 406 of 2023 – Mining Concession Agreement –:“In the same sense, the fact that the Assembly is its own Committee on Trade and Economic Affairshe developed, in a very irregular manner, a strange procedure in relation to the treaty itself, since he suggested, and this is recorded in the note of the said commission sent to the Executive Committee, to insert or modify a number of clauses which had been rejected by the intervenors and critics of the treaty. , and then, according to Cabinet Council, sends them on October 10 this year, and then, with a bang, the Commission approves the said contract and submits it to the Assembly for appropriate approval.

That is, never Commerce Commission should make this kind of objection or suggestion, because, as it is The court warned you with its decision of December 21, 2017precisely from the moment he determined that the said mining concession was not put up for public bidding, it was more than sufficient grounds for not giving consent to the said contract or, later, for the Assembly, the Law of the Republic.

Due process then becomes the norm violated constitutional superiors, since the term due process also refers to procedures that must be carried out by law.

Now I must also point out that Article 1 of Law 406 of 2023 is such a comprehensive and broad article that, nevertheless, it contains a large violations and violations of our Constitution.

So much so that this article refers to the fact that it uses a Environmental impact research approved by DIEORA Resolution IA- 1210-1210-2011 of December 28, 2011 and other “applicable environmental instruments” – without specifying or specifying what they are about – and the truth is that this environmental impact study was also declared unconstitutional by a ruling from 2017 brought by the Court, that is, there was none for this new Contract – Law, new Elaboration impact on the environment which, made or carried out by the competent authorities in the case (the Ministry of the Environment), could confirm a serious situation or condition of the flora and fauna of the areas affected by mining, as well as the existence of damage and large losses that occurred as a result of illegal exploration and exploitation large areas of land on our Isthmus of Panama.

Areas that have been turned into wasteland ecological crematorium.

Law no. 406 of October 20, 2023 is unconstitutional because it renounces our sovereignty (direct violation by committing Article 3 National Constitution which stipulates that the national territory may never be ceded, transferred or alienated, temporarily or partially, to other states), and thanks to the fact that until today People’s government he did not refute the public guilt that is constantly put on them, that they have property or equity, in a mining company that uses a concession, companies that represent other countries such as China, USA, South Korea, Canada, etc. ., Our integrity nation and our nationalities.

In the second order, it is the law 406/20 of December 2023 unconstitutional in accordance with what is prescribed in Article 258 of the Magna Carta, because goods that cannot be negotiated or privatized in any way are delivered: Territorial seas and lakes and river waters, beaches and coasts and rivers. navigable, and harbors and estuaries; land and water intended for public services and all types of communications, air space, underwater continental shelf, the bottom and subsoil of the territorial sea; riches of the deep sea, docks, ports, etc.

All this can be seen in Third clause, section 4, letter d; Numerical 8, 9, 10 (seabed), section 15 (acquisition of state land); Clause VIII to the extent that it entitles the concessionaire to use and divert water from natural sources and indicating that the concessionaire acknowledges that the use of water for the Panama Canal operation will have an advantage over the use of waters for the concession, this is very delicate because any possibility of using these waters remains open after the complicit silence of some ignorant administrator or turning a blind eye, in any case, it is clear that it should be stated that the said waters at no time can use the concessionaire.

This Law is unconstitutional because it destroys our entire ecological system or environment (Frequent violations in all its points of our Constitutional ecological regime prescribed in articles from 118 to 121 inclusive (State Constitution). Our rivers and hydrographic basins have been destroyed (the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor has already been affected).

No doubt that this a contract, disastrous and shameful, tramples on human rights and the right to a healthy and dignified environment to which the entire population is entitled.

God bless the country!