The court defended the state and the population

It’s not true that it is The court reflected the sentence in its decision of November 27, 2023, declaring the unconstitutionality of Act 406 of October 20, 2023, expressed or suggested that the door was open for the mining corporation to turn to international arbitration seeking multi-million sums. Never the Supreme Court, said or expressed such anger or dissent.

What does it mean The court prescribed, literally, is that these threats constitute intimidation of the Panamanian nation and can be analyzed in the context of voiding the contract for carrying out such threats or intimidation, before, during, and even after the signing of the contract before the Panamanian nation, as well as after Act 406 was issued -See page 221 Judgments-.

All of us who live in this nation are witnesses, even a few hours after this opinion was written, of these threats to the alleged multi-million lawsuits before international arbitration courts.

The Court on page 222 of the judgment in the case signal “In this sense, in matters of international arbitration, the source of law that can be used is the principles of INIDROIT, which we have already mentioned. Yes, we can present articles 1.7 and 3.2.6, which refer to good faith in negotiations and contract execution , as well as intimidation and threats as the defects of will they produce nullity of the contractual relationship”.

The court gave its “back” to those who advocated for the mining company at the pleading stage, keeping threats of international lawsuits and pointing out that a lawsuit through international commercial or investment arbitrations, based on Free trade agreement and bilateral agreement investments between Panama and Canadait could never be considered a legitimate and meaningful argument for the conclusion that the law in question should not be declared unconstitutional.

The court similarly refused the argument of Dr. Arturo Hoyosinto consideration or defense of the mining company, that if declared unconstitutional, we would be in the presence of “indirect expropriation” or that “this decision would be the generating fact configuring the cause of indirect expropriation” and that this decision becomes “unjust treatment” resulting in unjustified deprivation your investments.

The court, apparently on page 223, warns: “Now, we wish to point out that, by virtue of the powers conferred on this High Justice Corporation, specifically, resolution of legal conflicts presented to him by any citizen or person who believes that the law has threatened the integrity of the Political Constitution because it is contrary to its text or spirit, must declare its unconstitutionality (expulsion from the legal system)in order to restore the legal order.

It is considered a state measure aimed at preserving and protecting the main interests, such as, but not limited to, human rights, the national economy or protected rights Political constitution“On the other side, The court also stated that the contract mining concessions prescribed and approved in Law 406, apart from being a mere mining concession contract, has become the delivery of objects or goods that are in no way related to the purpose of the mining concession and draws attention to how the negotiation and sale electricity, docks, ports, seabedetc., in violation of all due process, considering that there was an invasion of the jurisdiction of other administrative bodies, among them, the Maritime Administration of Panama – see page 225 of the Judgment on Unconstitutionality. Finally, it is necessary to clarify that the claim of unconstitutionality can produce, in its decision, one or the other alternative: Either it is unconstitutional or it is the constitutional law in question.

You cannot ask for that decision generate the imposition or development of the problem typical of ordinary ordinary processes or as occurs in criminal proceedings. And once the unconstitutionality of the norm or act, law or legal provision that is accused of it is declared, it leaves the legal world, it does not exist. There is no more contract. And that the notification addressed to the parties, the plaintiff and the lawyer, and to no one else, will be made three -3- working days after the said notification. Publication in the Official Gazette It is ergas omnes, that is, for public ownership. It has nothing to do with its execution.

As a consequence, I have to say yes The court only ruled or decided one claim of unconstitutionality, i.e friend and colleague Juan Ramón Sevillano, year, in which I presented two arguments or allegations in favor of unconstitutionality, as a natural person and as a forensic signature, which the Court also, abbreviated, like the other arguments, stated in the sentence.

God bless the country!