On March 17, 2020, a government decree imposed a curfew from 9pm until 5am with limited exceptions in order to combat the spread of coronavirus. Four days earlier, the government also declared a “state of emergency” on account of coronavirus. For more details, see the ICNL COVID-19 Civic Freedom Tracker’s entry for Panama.
Panamanian civil society plays a significant role in several areas of national life, including the environment, judicial reform, human rights, transparency and government oversight, and the preservation of ethnic identity. The country’s civil society organizations (CSOs) are gradually expanding their participation in other matters of public interest.
Civil society developed more slowly in Panama than in other countries in the region because it was primarily comprised of members from the country’s upper economic class who were closely connected to the political elite. The majority of Panama’s populace was not able to counter the small but powerful elite and strategically organize around any particular issue for any length of time. Instead, civic organization emerged only in response to very specific and limited issues, such as housing costs, canal operations and treaties, and the privatization of state-run services.
During the decade following the United States’ removal of General Manuel Noriega from power in 1989, however, there was an enormous influx of international governmental and non-governmental aid flowing into Panama. Panama’s political leaders were aware of the benefits of CSOs in the development of the country and of their contributions to the national economy. Thus, civil society’s influence has surged since the end of dictatorial rule and the institution of democracy in the 1990s.
At the same time, however, members of civil society believe more progress is needed in Panama. In order to better protect the democratic system in the country, CSOs must strengthen their networks and alliances and promote legal reforms conducive to a more participatory democracy.
|Organizational Forms||Religious associations; public interest associations; not-for-profit private interest associations; private interest foundations|
|Registration Body||Legal Directorate of the Ministry of Government (MINGOB)|
|Barriers to Entry||Excessive government discretion; burdensome registration procedures; high costs of registration|
|Barriers to Activities||Excessive government discretion regarding revocation of legal status; burdensome obligations relating to website maintenance; and restrictive provisions purportedly for countering terrorism and money laundering (Decree 62 of March 30, 2017)|
|Barriers to Speech and/or Advocacy||No legal barriers|
|Barriers to International Contact||Foreigners cannot be members of the governing board of a CSO, except internationally prominent figures in arts, sports, literature, and other similar areas.|
|Barriers to Resources||No legal barriers|
|Barriers to Assembly||24-hour advance notification requirement; spontaneous assemblies not allowed; failure to provide sufficient protection to organizers and participants in assemblies|
|Population||4,058,372 (Nov 2016 est.)|
|Type of Government||Constitutional Democracy|
|Life Expectancy at Birth||Male: 75.18 years
Female: 80.86 years (2012)
|Literacy Rate||Male: 97.3%
Female: 91.7% (2015 est.)
|Religious Groups||Roman Catholic 85%, Protestant 15%|
|Ethnic Groups||Mestizo (mixed Amerindian and white) 70%, Amerindian and mixed (West Indian) 14%, white 10%, Amerindian 6%|
|GDP per capita||$13,268.11 (2015 est.)|
Source: CIA World Factbook
|Ranking Body||Rank||Ranking Scale
(best – worst possible)
|UN Human Development Index||66 (2018)||1 – 182|
|World Bank Rule of Law Index||54 (2017)||100 – 0|
|World Bank Voice & Accountability Index||65 (2017)||100 – 0|
|Transparency International||96 (2017)||1 – 180|
|World Justice Project Rule of Law Index||62 (2016)||1-113|
|Freedom House: Freedom in the World||Status: Free
Political Rights Score: 2
Civil Liberties Score: 2 (2018)
|Free/Partly Free/Not Free
1 – 7
1 – 7
|Foreign Policy: Fragile States Index||136 (2018)||177 – 1|
International and Regional Human Rights Agreements
|Key International Agreements||Ratification*||Year|
|International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)||Yes||1977|
|Optional Protocol to ICCPR (ICCPR-OP1)||Yes||1977|
|International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)||Yes||1977|
|Optional Protocol to ICESCR (OP-ICESCR)||No||—|
|International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD)||Yes||1977|
|Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)||Yes||1981|
|Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women||Yes||2001|
|Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)||Yes||1990|
|International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families (ICRMW)||No||—|
|Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)||Yes||2007|
|American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR)||Yes||1991|
|Organization of American States (OAS)||Yes||1948|
* Category includes ratification, accession, or succession to the treaty
The Constitution of the Republic of Panama establishes in Article 39 a fundamental guarantee of the right of association:
“It is permitted to form companies, associations and foundations that are not contrary to morality or law. They may obtain recognition as legal persons…”
The Constitution also recognizes freedom of thought and expression in Article 37:
Every person may freely express his opinion orally, in writing or by any other means, without prior censorship, but there are legal responsibilities when by any of these means one affects the reputation or honor of individuals or the social security or public order…”
Finally, the Constitution recognizes the right to peaceful assembly in Article 38:
“The people of the Republic have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms for lawful purposes. Protests or outdoor meetings are not subject to permit and to perform them one is only required to notify the local administrative authority in advance of twenty-four hours…”
National Laws and Regulations Affecting Sector
The national laws and regulations governing civil society organizations (CSOs) include the following:
- Articles 64-75 of the Civil Code define the concept and categories of legal personality. Articles 4-5 of the Civil Code define public interest and private interest associations.
- Article 170 of the Penal Code of 2007 on Crimes Against Freedom of Assembly and Press has been used to justify police repression of public gathering and meetings.
- Executive Decree 170 of 1993 provides the income tax exemption for CSOs According to Article 13 of the Decree, income obtained by CSOs is tax exempt as long as it is used exclusively for purposes of social assistance, public charity, education or sports.
- Executive Decree 524 of 2005 established new requirements for the granting of legal personality by the Ministry of Government and created a Registry of CSOs under the Ministry of Government.
- Executive Decree 615 of 2012, which amends Executive Decree 524 of 2005 and stipulates the possibility that foreign people can form the board of a CSO by proving their international relevance in business, philanthropic, cultural, religious, educational, scientific, artistic and sporting spheres.
- Executive Decree 627 of December 2006 amended Article 11 of Executive Decree 524 on the Registry of CSOs. Under the Decree, private interest foundations formed pursuant to Law 25 of June 1995 may also register with the Ministry of Government as long as they are established for strictly social purposes and affiliated with the City of Knowledge, a private foundation with public sector participation that provides training and promotes the advancement of science and culture in the country.
- Law 25 of June 1995 regulates private interest foundation requiring that they have a founding charter and assets that are intended specifically for pursuing their previously set objectives.
- Law 33 of June 2010, an amendment to the tax code, regulates the matter of double taxation with countries with which Panama has signed free trade agreements. This law includes an article that establishes the obligation for CSOs to create a webpage where they must publicly list all of their donors.
- Executive Decree 600 of 2005 defines public interest associations as associations linked to public institutions. The state does not consider them civil society actors, although the state does not manage their implementation.
- Resolutions 201-1183 and 201-2788 of 2008 of the General Directorate of Income [Dirección General de Ingresos] under the Ministry of the Economy and Finance must be complied with in order for CSOs to receive public benefit status.
- Law 29 on Volunteerism (Ley 29 Sobre el Voluntariado), October 28, 2014
- Law 8 on Creates and Regulating Environmental Community Organizations, March 25, 2015.
- Law 82 on Criminalizing Discrimination against Women, and Femicide, which requires the dissolution of non-for profit organizations that did not change their regulations to accept women and men in equal conditions (Articles 68 and 69), 2013.
- Law 363 on Adopting Measures to Prevent Money Laundering, Financing of Terrorism and the Financing of Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction and Other Provisions, August 13, 2015.
- Decree 62 which Regulates Not-for-profit Associations and Foundations whose Legal Status is Recognized by the Ministry of Government (MINGOB) and other Provisions, March 31, 2017.
- Executive Decree 265 of December 28, 2018, regulating Law 39 of August 8, 2018, which regulates the creation of the associations of public interest.
Pending NGO Legislative / Regulatory Initiatives
1. In August 2014, The Citizens Alliance for Justice (La Alianza Ciudadana Pro Justicia) presented three draft laws, which were approved as part of the State Pact for Justice  as early as 2005. The draft laws include a proposal that regulates administrative and local justice, a proposal that eliminates some public employee privileges, and a proposal on judicial careers intended to combat nepotism.
 In 2005, after a scandal involving charges of corruption of Supreme Court judges, then President Torrijos oversaw the development of a “State Pact for Justice” in which 27 initiatives for reform were agreed to be proposed.
2. In 2015, meetings were held to analyze the legal environment of civil society in Panama and work on proposals for a new NGO law, but there are no concrete results as of yet.
3. After the approval of Decree 62 of March 2017, no further reform on not-for-profit associations has been discussed.
4. Currently there is a Council of the National Agreement for Development (Consejo de la Concertación Nacional para el Desarrollo), which provides space for dialogue and consultation through Law 20 of 2008 where state institutions, business organizations and civil society can meet and where topics can be discussed on themes of national interest. At the legislative level, there is legislation that includes civil society participation in spaces for coordination and decision-making related to public policy, but discussion on and approval of a Law on Citizen Participation is still pending.
Under the Civil Code, there are four civil society organizational forms: (1) religious associations; (2) public interest associations as defined in Executive Decree 600 of 2005; (3) not-for-profit private interest associations as recognized by Executive Decree 524 of 2005; and (4) private interest foundations regulated by Law 25 of 1995.
According to Article 36 of the Constitution, “Religious organizations have legal capacity and manage and administer their property within the limits prescribed by law, as well as other legal persons.”
Public interest associations as defined in Executive Decree 600 of 2005 are associations made up of public institutions and other entities recognized by the state. They are linked to government services; indeed, the state does not consider them civil society actors. However, the state does not manage their implementation.
Not-for-profit private interest associations as recognized by Executive Decree 524 of 2005 are privately funded and administered by non-governmental or non-public entities. Their aims relate to the defense of rights or to improving the moral or intellectual conditions of their members or society as a whole.
Private interest foundations are regulated by Law 25 of 1995, which requires that they have a founding charter and assets intended specifically for their objectives. Executive Decree 627 of 2006 provides for recognition of the legal personality of private interest foundations established under Law 25 of 1995, as long as they have (1) strictly social purposes as stipulated in their articles of incorporation; and (2) proof of affiliation with the City of Knowledge, a private foundation with public sector participation that provides training and promotes the advancement of science and culture in the country.
Public Benefit Status
Under Panamanian law, CSOs may be authorized by the Directorate General of Income of the Ministry of Economy and Finance to receive tax-deductible donations. The request for authorization for public benefit status must include a notarized power of attorney; the grounds for the request; a list of the organization’s members; its domicile; a schedule of meetings; an original and current certification from the Public Registry verifying the organization’s existence; an authenticated copy of the Ministry of Government (MINGOB) resolution recognizing its activities as charitable or educational and not-for-profit; a copy of the articles of incorporation and by-laws; a five-year work plan; and proof of continuous activities to the benefit of the community for at least the previous 12 months. The organization must also submit written materials on the progress of its plans and programs; agree to on-site inspections of its facilities, works and projects; and comply with the regulations set out in Resolution 201-1183 of 2008.
Barriers to Entry
The following barriers to entry exist:
1. Discretion in processing applications for legal personality: Not-for-profit private interest associations applying for registration must submit the required documentation to the Legal Directorate of the MINGOB, which then verifies that the documents are compliant with the requirements set in Executive Decree 524 of 2005. Some officials designated by the MINGOB to process applications report that they reject as many as 99% of applications for being technically deficient the first time they are submitted, even though by law the applications must be submitted by a lawyer.
2. Burdensome documentation requirements: As part of the documentation required for registration, Article 2 of Executive Decree 524 of 2005 requires that not-for-profit private interest associations provide a “work plan” which includes the objectives and main activities that they will develop within their first five years of existence. In addition to the requirements related to soliciting an attorney, articles of incorporation, by-laws, approval of the charter and other documents, this “work plan” is considered to be unnecessary—and premature—for not-for-profit private interest associations in the early stages of their formation. CSO members believe that simplified procedures would make registration more available to the common citizen and expedite the registration process. Currently, the review and approval process for all of this documentation can take as long as three months to one year.
3. Burdensome domicile requirements: Article 10 of Executive Decree 524 of 2005 requires not-for-profit private interest associations to maintain owned or rented premises to serve as their domicile. The premises must be where the meetings and the activities undertaken to fulfill the organization’s objectives take place. However, many organizations lack resources to maintain premises, whether owned or leased.
4. High costs of the application: The costs of the registration process, not including attorney’s fees, can range from 300-500 US dollars in registration fees, which is often unaffordable for groups and associations with limited resources. In addition to the notary fees and stamp duties for all organizations, the centralized registration system, whereby all organizations must file applications at the headquarters of the MINGOB in Panama City, triggers extra costs for organizations based outside of the capital.
Barriers to Operational Activity
The following barriers to operational activity exist:
1. Discretion in revoking legal status. Rules relating to the revocation of legal status are not addressed by laws, but rather legal regulations such as executive orders, which allow for a greater degree of discretion. Article 15 of Executive Decree 524 of 2005, for example, prohibits not-for-profit private interest associations from carrying out activities that are illegal or against morals or good customs, and sets forth a vague procedure for revoking legal status. In addition, the MINGOB may revoke legal personality if it determines that the activities of the CSO are contrary to those laid down in the statutes of the organization; even the mere receipt of information alleging illegal activities or activities contrary to a CSO’s statute is sufficient to dissolve a CSO. While there is no record of the government relying on this provision to dissolve a CSO, the Decree opens the possibility that if a CSO engages in lawful activities that are not covered in its statute, its legal status may be revoked. Moreover, the Decree does not establish basic safeguards against the possibility of a revocation.
2. Burdensome obligations. Law 33 of June 30, 2010, which amended Article 34 of Law 50 of 2003, provides measures to prevent the use of funds for money laundering, drug trafficking and terrorism. Specifically, the law requires a CSO to maintain monthly updates on a website, including information on all of its donors. To maintain a website may not be feasible economically or technically for some CSOs.
3. No single registry of CSOs. There is no single national registry of CSOs available to the public that includes all CSOs in the country; instead, there are multiple registries, including the Registry of the MINGOB and the Public Registry in the section on legal persons. The existence of both registries allows, in practice, for some organizations to register with the Public Registry and not with the MINGOB. In addition, the MINGOB’s records are not easily accessible to the general public.
On top of these barriers, Decree 62 of March 30, 2017, which purports to counter money laundering, terrorist financing and the financing of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, has raised concern among CSOs due to the following restrictive provisions:
Decree 62 of March 30, 2017 was presented as an advance in the fight against money laundering and financing of terrorism during the visit of the Latin American Financial Action Task Force’s (GAFILAT) on-site visit to Panama on May 26, 2017 for the Fourth Round of Mutual Evaluation. Nonetheless, CSOs consider Decree 62 a restrictive setback for a number of reasons, including:
1. CSOs must use a legal representative to register in the registry of NPOs of the Ministry of Government (MINGOB) and send a copy of the deed and record from the registry to MINGOB. (Article 14)
2. CSOs are subject to MINGOB inspection at their offices at any time. (Article 16)
3. CSOs’ accounting books and minutes can be requested at any time by MINGOB. (Article 17)
4. CSOs that do not receive public funds can be inspected and subject to verification by MINGOB. (Article 20)
5. A department for monitoring and evaluation of the operational functioning of all CSOs is established. There is no distinction as to whether public or private funds are received by a CSO or whether it administers funds or not. (Article 27)
6. The department for monitoring and evaluation can recommend the permanent monitoring of the operations of any CSO and recommend control mechanisms to prevent any CSO from violating the current laws. (Article 29)
7. The department for monitoring and evaluation can supervise CSOs in developing their activities and fulfilling the goals and objectives for which they were created. (Article 30)
8. The department for monitoring and evaluation may verify and require the registration of funds received or transferred by CSOs. It does not matter whether or not they receive public funds. (Article 30)
9. The department for monitoring and evaluation may require all information, documentation, books, records and documents of CSOs. (Article 31)
10. The department for monitoring and evaluation may conduct home visits to supervise activities and operations carried out by CSOs. (Article 32)
11. CSOs that are registered to receive donations, or those that receive funds, must present a balance sheet every year to MINGOB. (Article 40)
Barriers to Speech / Advocacy
CSOs engaging in advocacy activities may confront challenges in the form of hostile government rhetoric and the establishment of GONGOs (government-organized NGOs). GONGOs are those organizations that have been established by or are affiliated with politicians and political parties; in some cases these organizations receive public funding. Many within civil society believe that the existence of GONGOs has fueled the de-legitimization, fragmentation, lack of coherence and lack of sustainability in the civic sector and weakened the voices of truly independent CSOs.
In addition, activists who speak out against large projects of the government or companies may risk being sued for large amounts of money that they cannot afford. For example, in 2017 a company that claimed to have been harmed by the cancellation of the Los Estrechos hydroelectric project, which would have been built on the Cobre River (Rio Cobre), demanded $10 million from peasant leader Larissa Duarte in the Eighteenth Civil Court of Panama because her activism was in opposition to the project and was said to have been the cause of the cancellation of the project. The Human Rights Network of Panama has said that the lawsuit against Duarte was “not only an act of harassment and intimidation against the activist [Duarte], but a threat against all other human rights defenders.”
There have also been several lawsuits against civil society activists, including the judicial seizure of the assets and bank account of Max Crowe in 2017. He was the president of the not-for-profit Association of Homeowners of the Garden City of Albrook. There was also a civil lawsuit initiated by a Deputy of the Republic against María Chavez, who was president of the Urban Citizen Network, for the sum of $500,000 because of her role in opposing an urban development project in 2017. In addition, in 2017 the Asociación Ambiental de Vecinos de Coco del Mar faced a civil lawsuit brought by the construction company that was building a skyscraper in its neighborhood until the project was halted due to the company lacking proper permissions and violating environmental regulations.
Barriers to International Contact
Members of the board of a CSO must be Panamanian, except for embassy officials, diplomatic personnel, and functionaries of state agencies and foreign entities that are a represented in Panama, all of whom can be members of a CSO’s board. Also internationally distinguished persons in business, philanthropy, cultural, religious, educational, scientific and artistic matters and sports can be members of a CSO board.
The general rule against non-Panamanian board membership limits the ability of foreigners who do not fall into one of the specified categories to contribute to civil society in the country.
Barriers to Resources
There are no significant barriers to resources in Panama.
Barriers to Assembly
Public meetings and assemblies in Panama are governed by the Constitution and by the Administrative Code.
Notification. Holding a peaceful meeting or assembly requires notice addressed to the Mayor and must be provided 24 hours prior to the date of the meeting or assembly (Article 38, National Constitution). The notification does not require authorization from the Mayor’s office; therefore the notice cannot be denied. The Mayor is simply supposed to issue a statement whereby he declares that he has been notified of the assembly. In practice, however, the Mayor responds to the notice in 1 to 3 days, and sometimes issues clarifications or amendments to the notification.
The Administrative Code states that public demonstrations are not allowed without prior authorization of the Mayor if they impede public transit in streets or squares or other public lanes (Article 1344).
Spontaneous assemblies are not legally permitted.
Enforcement. Article 38 of the Constitution allows the government to prevent assemblies when the manner in which they are exercised “causes or may cause obstruction to free transit, disturbs to public order or violation to third parties rights.”
In practice, current and previous governments have applied excessive police force to suppress public gatherings.
Criminal Penalties. Article 170 of the Penal Code on Crimes Against Freedom of Assembly and Press states: “The person who, abusing his right to assemble or to hold meetings, and with violence, impedes the free transit of the vehicles on public lanes in the country, causing damages to public or private property, shall be punished with six months to two years of prison.” This article has been used to justify police repression of public gathering and meetings.
While any action to impede a public gathering also constitutes a crime, the authorities, in practice, fail to provide sufficient protection to the organizers and participants of peaceful assemblies.
Excessive police force to suppress public gatherings. Panamanian governments have applied excessive police force to suppress public gatherings. In particular, the authorities have used Article 170 of the Penal Code, which permits the suppression of public gatherings that disturb free transit. For example, in Colon, in October 2012, the police excessively used tear gas, pepper spray, bird shots and gunfire to stop a public gathering that was considered to have disturbed free transit.
|UN Universal Periodic Review Reports||Ninth session Geneva, 1-12 November 2010|
|Reports of UN Special Rapporteurs|
|USIG (United States International Grantmaking) Country Notes||Not available|
|U.S. State Department||Background Note: Panama|
|Fragile States Index Reports||Foreign Policy: Fragile States Index|
|IMF Country Reports||Panama and the IMF|
|International Commission of Jurists||Not available|
|International Center for Not-for-Profit Law Online Library||Panama|
While we aim to maintain information that is as current as possible, we realize that situations can rapidly change. If you are aware of any additional information or inaccuracies on this page, please keep us informed; write to ICNL at email@example.com.
Max Crowe Reports Abuse After Defending Residential Zoning in Albrook (August 2017) (Spanish)
Max Crowe, the president and legal representative of the Albrook Homeowners Association, has filed a lawsuit to defend residential zoning and is a victim of judicial abuse through a seizure of his property. The case is seen as an excessive abuse against citizens’ organizations.
Fifteen arrested after march of sex workers (June 2017) (Spanish)
About 15 people protesting in front of the facilities of the National Police in the district of Ancón were arrested the afternoon of yesterday. These were several sex workers, who after organizing and conducting a march at Plaza 5 de Mayo demanded that police cease abuses against them. The march ended in clashes when riot police officers appeared, who alleged that the women obstructed the road.
Official delegation meets with residents of Island of Pedro González (May 2017) (Spanish)
In accordance with the thematic hearing held last March before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) on the subject of “the human rights situation of environmental defenders in Panama”, state officials and representatives of rights organizations visited Pedro González Island, in the Pearl Islands Archipelago. The community spokespersons stressed that they are not opposed to tourism development in Pedro González, but demanded that such development be respectful of the rights of islanders.
NGOs vulnerable to money laundering (April 2017) (Spanish)
A new regulation seeks to determine that the source of donor funds of NGOs. “By not being supervised, NGOs are the perfect channel for money laundering,” explained Yuleika Cardenas of the Financial Analysis Unit (UAF) during a training organized by the Ministry of Government to publicize the contents of the newly Approved Executive Decree 62 of March 30, 2017 for the supervision and monitoring of NGOs. Edwin Rios, expert consultant on risk prevention and risk identification, said the National Risk Plan mentions the potential risk that these associations may be used to channel money through their activities to finance terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. Among the warning signs to identify suspicious transactions is to make a move between an ‘A’ foundation and a ‘B’ foundation, sharing the same address and the same manager or sharing the same staff.
IACHR requests report from the Panamanian Government on Human Rights Defenders (March 2017) (Spanish)
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) requested a written report from the Government of Panama on the situation faced by human rights defenders. The agency held a hearing in which various human rights organizations filed complaints against the Government about the intimidation of human rights defenders.
Company sues activist for $10 million (October 2016) (in Spanish)
The peasant leader Larissa Duarte was sued for the sum of $10 million by the AHM company before the Civil Eighteenth Civil Court of Panama. The suit, Duarte explained, is because the company was allegedly harmed by the cancellation of the Los Estrechos hydroelectric project, which would be built over the Rio Copper. Duarte protested the plant.
Citizens Alliance for Justic Accused of Pressuring Criminal Court (October 2015) (in Spanish)
New statements are allegations of the involvement of outside groups in criminal cases being conducted by the Public Prosecutor against former officials of the past government administration.The former head of the former Judicial Technical Police (PTJ), Jaime Abad, revealed that a group of lawyers who claim to be independent are “advisosr” to prosecutors in some criminal cases. Meanwhile, the board of the Citizens Alliance for Justice, Magaly Castillo, stated that it is independent and that the organization does not influence investigations.
Civil Society presents three draft laws (August 2014) (in Spanish)
La Alianza Ciudadana Pro Justicia met with President of the National Assembly, Deputy Adolfo Valderrama, to present three draft laws. The initiatives are not new and have been widely discussed by various sectors of civil society. “We hope that this new Assembly, whose president has said repeatedly that he seeks to rebuild the country’s institutions, can make these projects become laws of the Republic” one activist said. The draft laws include a proposal that regulates administrative and local justice, a proposal that eliminates some public employee privileges, and a proposal on judicial careers intended to combat nepotism.
Letter from Citizens Alliance for Justice sent to President of the Supreme Court of Justice (April 2014) (in Spanish)
The text of the letter that the Citizens Alliance for Justice sent to Jose Ayu Prado, President of the Supreme Court of Justice, was publicized on 20 March. The letter was about a report that a magistrate issued judgments based on personal business concerns. However, the Constitution of the Republic of Panama in Article 210 states: ” The Magistrates and Judges are independent in the exercise of their functions and are subject only to the Constitution and the Law…”
Public Hearing at the Interamerican Comission of Human Rights (November 2013)
On October 31, 2013, there was a hearing about the situation of prisions in Panama. Four organizations, including Stanford, Harvard, the Citizens Alliance for Justice, and JUSPAX, cited said that Panam still violates ‘persistently’ the rights of detainees, despite ‘huge investments’. (in Spanish)
Honran la labor de 10 activistas de los derechos humanos (October 2013)
La Red de Organizaciones de Derechos Humanos efectuará a las 5:30 p.m. de hoy, en el hotel Continental, un acto para reconocer la labor de 10 activistas que luchan por los derechos humanos, la juventud, los reclusos, el medio ambiente y la libertad de expresión.
Front For Democracy Held A March Against Martinelli’s Style Of Government (September 2013)
Members of Front for Democracy held a march against the style of government of Ricardo Martinelli and the perceived weakening of democratic institutions in the country.
International Development Bank (IDB) continues collaboration with civil society (February 2013)
The IDB considers civil society organizations as a vital partner in the development of Latin America and the Caribbean. During 2012, the Bank continued to focus on strengthen dialogue, consultation, participation and engagement with civil society. The 2013 Annual Meeting of the IDB’s Board of Governors will take place on Panama from March 13 – 17, 2013 and the Civil Society Session will be held on Friday, March 15, 2013. This session will be co-organized with the Civil Society Consultative Group of Panama(ConSoc Panama).
CSOs rally to reject copyright legislation (October 2012)
The Panamanian Congress recently passed a dangerous copyright bill, and it is one step away from becoming law. Civil society organizations from around the world have rallied to urge President Ricardo Martinelli to reject the legislation, send it back to Congress, and allow experts and civil society members to be involved in the process. The bill has caused a huge uproar around the world, including one report calling it “the worst copyright bill in history.”
“Civil Society” Screeching Over Supreme Court Appointments (June 2012)
Law & Lawyers Professor Miguel Antonio Bernal and the Executive Secretary of the Citizens Alliance for Justice, Magaly Castillo agreed that the appointment of three new judges of the Fifth Chamber is “a fragrant violation of the agreements of the State covenant for justice.” For Bernal the designations of Lilia Herrera, Anabel Padilla and Arturo Vallarino as Supreme Court judges should be considered by society as an affront to participatory democracy. “It’s sad what’s happening in our country, and now with this appointment and violating all the agreements of the pact, signifies a setback for democracy and the Panamanian justice system,” said Bernal.
USAID Cites Panama Success as Program Ends (June 2012)
Panama’s strong economic growth and commitment to development has brought more than half a century of collaboration with the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to an end. The progress Panama has achieved is a development success story, USAID said in a June 13 press release.
Protester deaths need proper investigation (February 2012)
Panama’s authorities must investigate allegations of excessive use of force by police after two protestors were killed during three days of clashes between security forces and the Ngäbe-Buglé people, Amnesty International said today. Jerónimo Rodríguez Tugrí was allegedly shot dead by police in San Felix in eastern Chiriquí province on 5 February, and more than 40 others – including police officers – have reportedly been wounded during the demonstrations.