| Basic information | Substance of the ruling | Accessibility of the case and further relevant links | |||||||
| Date | Name of the case (or case number) | The body delivering the decision | Keywords, topic | Executive part | Brief summary | Full text | Page at the website of the issuing court | Page in other databases | Unofficial materials, press communications |
| March 15. 2021. | No. 546-2020 and No. 597-2020. | Supreme Court of Justice of Panama | Labor law; discrimination; right to equality | The Supreme Court of Panama upheld the constitutionality of certain temporary labor regulations adopted during the public health emergency. | Two labor unions attacked some temporary labor rules adopted during the public health emergency. The claimants argued that these measures did not differentiate properly between those employers whose employment contracts were suspended, and whose were just modified during the public health emergency. Moreover, these temporary measures were still in force at the time of the constitutional review, in spite of their limited temporal scope, these provisions remained applicable for the longer term. The Supreme Court of Panama upheld the validity of the impugned measures as these were necessary steps for the protection of public health. | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/panama-supreme-court-panama-no-546-2020-and-no-597-2020-accumulated-lawsuits-2021-03-15 | |||
| March 13. 2021. | No. 301-2020. | Supreme Court of Justice of Panama | Freedom of movement | The Supreme Court of Justice of Panama found unconstitutional a ministerial decree limiting freedom of movement based on gender and the last digit of identification document during the public health emergency. | The Supreme Court of Justice of Panama heard a case challenging a decree of the Ministry for Public Health issued during the public health emergency. The decree provided that to limit the mobility of people, on certain days, only men were allowed to leave their homes, while on other days, only women were allowed to do so. Moreover, mobility was further restricted to certain periods of the day based on the last digit of each identification document. The claimants argued that the lack of definite temporal scope results in unconstitutionality. The Supreme Court of Justice held that the imprecise temporal scope was reasonable in the light of the public health uncertainties, however, by the enactment of this decree, the minister overstepped his regulatory competences, therefore, his decree was unconstitutional. | https://repositoriodigital.organojudicial.gob.pa/bitstream/handle/001/194/301-20%20RESOLUCION-ARROCHA-INCONSTITUCIONALIDAD-SON%20INCONSTITUCIONALES-RJ.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/panama-supreme-court-justice-panama-no-301-2020-2021-03-13 | ||
| March 12. 2021. | No. 7033-2021. | Supreme Court of Justice of Panama | Right to access public information; right to petition | The Supreme Court of Justice of Panama ruled that a request for explanation of public health restrictions from the Ministry of Public Health shall be classified as a petition rather than a request for public information. | The claimant submitted a request for public information to the Ministry of Health to receive a detailed scientific and factual justification of applied public health measures. The writ of habeas data remained unanswered, therefore, the claimant turned to the Supreme Court of Justice to order the Ministry to provide an answer. The Supreme Court of Justice held that the survey sent to the Ministry shall be classified as a petition expecting explanation of implemented measures rather than a request for public information, therefore, the writ of habeas data was not admitted. | https://repositoriodigital.organojudicial.gob.pa/bitstream/handle/001/421/Entrada%207033-2021.pdf?sequence=5&isAllowed=y | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/panama-supreme-court-panama-no-7033-2021-2021-03-12 | ||
| February 26. 2021. | No 13475-2021. | Supreme Court of Justice of Panama | Freedom of movement; separation of powers | The Supreme Court of Justice of Panama suspended the authorization of the Minister for Public Health to impose quarantine restrictions through decree, but the already implemented limitations on freedom of movement were left in place. | A private individual initiated the constitutional review of two regulatory provisions ordering restrictions on freedom of movement and also on providing authorization for the Ministry for Public health to order quarantine measures during the public health emergency. The impugned quarantine measures rendered a complete quarantine during the weekend, and also a partial quarantine during weekdays. The Supreme Court of Justice held that the measures already implemented are valid, however, the authorization by the decree for the Ministry of Public Health is unconstitutional, since the decree was enacted solely by the executive (by the President of the Republic and countersigned by the Minister for Public Health) not in conformity with the sanitary act adopted by the legislation. As a consequence, the authorization for the Minister was suspended until the final decision of the matter. | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/panama-supreme-court-justice-3rd-chamber-labor-and-administrative-affairs-file-no-13475 | |||
| February 11. 2021. | No. 94178-2020. | Supreme Court of Justice of Panama | Freedom of movement | The Supreme Court of Justice of Panama rejected an amparo action against an executive decree introducing collective restrictions of human rights. | Two individuals submitted an amparo action against an executive decree introducing restrictions of human rights, primarily of free movement. According to the claim, the impugned measure contradicts either with the Interamerican Convention on Human Rights, the Constitution of Panama and the relevant statutory provisions, while it also lacks proper scientific justification. Moreover, the claim also argues that the executive overstepped its competence and adopted the decree without proper authorization from the legislation. The Supreme Court of Justice did not admit the claim since amparo action should be submitted against individual human right violations instead of collective ones. | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/panama-supreme-court-justice-panama-no-94178-2020-2021-02-11 | |||
| January 28. 2021. | No. 573-2020. | Supreme Court of Justice of Panama | Freedom of movement; state of emergency | The Supreme Court of Justice of Panama confirmed the constitutionality of the executive decree ordering curfew on March 17 2020 due to the rise of the Covid-19 pandemic. | Two individuals initiated the constitutional review of the executive decree rendering curfew on March 17 2020. due to the rise of the Covid-19 pandemic. The claim held that the impugned decree violated international and constitutional standards of human rights protection, while it overstepped executive competences especially with imposing curfew with an indefinite period without declaring state of emergency. The Supreme Court of Justice confirmed the constitutionality of the challenged decree and underlined, that in the known public health circumstances, the protection of public health meant the essential constitutional duty for the state. As a consequence, the decree remained beyond executive competences while the restrictions imposed were proportionate. The claim was dismissed. | https://repositoriodigital.organojudicial.gob.pa/bitstream/handle/001/416/Entrada%20No.%20573-2020.pdf?sequence=5&isAllowed=y | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/panama-supreme-court-justice-panama-no-573-2020-2021-01-28 | ||
| January 21. 2021. | No. 901-2020. | Supreme Court of Justice of Panama | Labor law; rights of disabled persons; discrimination; due process | The Supreme Court of Justice of Panama ruled that the dismissal of an elder, disabled public servant without disciplinary administrative procedure during the public health emergency meant a violation of due process rights and rights of the disabled, as well as material equality of people, therefore, the employment contract should be reinstated. | A public servant over 60 years with severe illnesses was dismissed by the Ministry of Presidency without disciplinary administrative measure during the public health emergency. He challenged the termination of his employment and the Supreme Court of Justice heard the case on the final instance. The Supreme Court of Justice found that the dismissal without disciplinary administrative procedure violated the due process rights of the claimant as his individual circumstances (his illnesses, age, disability and the fact that he also was responsible for his 83-years-old mother) could not be taken into account. Moreover, rights of disabled people as well as material equality were also neglected. As a result, the Supreme Court of Justice ordered the Ministry to reinstate the employment contract of the claimant with the same conditions as it existed before its termination. |
https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/panama-supreme-court-justice-panama-no-901-2020-2021-01-21; https://vlex.com.pa/vid/amparo-garantias-constitucionales-corte-875225654 |
|||
| January 1. 2021. | Exp: 893-2020. | Supreme Court of Justice of Panama | Right to access to justice; right to an effective remedy; right to a fair trial | The Supreme Court of Justice of Panama held that any infringement of quarantine rules during the public health emergency amounted just to administrative offence rather than a criminal one when the person concerned was not proved being infected by Covid-19. | A man was arrested due to illegal possession of weapons and also violating the quarantine rules imposed during the Covid-19 pandemic. The first instance court considered the illegal possession of weapons as a criminal charge, while the spread of contagious disease as an administrative one, this was challenged by the public prosecutor of the case. The second instance court upheld the claim of the prosecutor and ordered the first instance court to treat the spread of contagious disease also as a criminal offence rather than an administrative one. The detained person submitted an amparo to the Supreme Court of Justice which accepted the argumentation of the claimant and rewoked the decision of the second instance court. The spread of contagious disease amounts just to an administrative offence if any evidence does not prove that the claimant was infected by Covid-19 when he breached the quarantine rules. |
https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/panama-supreme-court-justice-supreme-court-justice-exp-893-2020-january-11th-2021-2021; https://vlex.com.pa/vid/apelacion-corte-suprema-justicia-875225656 |
|||
| June 18. 2020. | No. 254-2020. | Supreme Court of Justice of Panama | Right to conduct a business; right to access to justice; separation of powers | The Supreme Court of Justice of Panama held that it sets an unconstitutional requirement for lawyers to exercise their profession that during the public health emergency, apart from optaining pass of suitability by the Supreme Court of Justice, an executive decree also provides that a pass of safe conduct should be optained by the executive authorities. | An individual submitted a claim to the Supreme Court of Justice impugning an executive decree issued by the president of the republic and the ministry for public health imposing on lawyers pass of safe conduct as an additional precondition for the mobility of exercising the profession of lawyer during the public health emergency. The claim alleged that it should be unconstitutional to establish a new condition for the lawyers especially issued discretionary by the executive power, which enacted the impugned decree. Moreover, a cabinet decree would be necessary to impose such requirements instead of an executive one. The Supreme Court of Justice accepted the arguments of the claimant and nullified the contested measure as unconstitutional. | https://repositoriodigital.organojudicial.gob.pa/bitstream/handle/001/474/Entrada%20254-2020.pdf?sequence=5&isAllowed=y | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/panama-supreme-court-panama-no-254-2020-2020-06-18 | ||
| June 1. 2020. | No. 218-2020. | Supreme Court of Justice of Panama | Rights of prisoners; access to justice | The Supreme Court of Justice of Panama rejected a petition of habeas corpus submitted by a prisoner suffering from high blood pressure during the Covid-19 pandemic. | The claimant challenged the constitutionality of his detention in an overcrowded prison during the Covid-19 pandemic through a habeas corpus action and also providing that he suffered from high blood pressure which made him vulnerable during the public health emergency. He also stressed the lack of his criminal record, while the case relied on extensive documentation, therefore, the criminal proceeding was time-consuming. The Supreme Court of Justice argued that habeas corpus action is a remedy established for checking the formal lawfulness of detention orders such as the competence of the issuing authority, the written form of the order and the formalities of the written order. These were all met in the present case, therefore, the habeas corpus action was dismissed as unfounded. |
https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/panama-supreme-court-panama-file-no-218-2020-2020-06-01; https://vlex.com.pa/vid/primera-instancia-corte-suprema-866757942 |
|||
| May 8. 2020. | No. 225-2020. | Supreme Court of Justice of Panama | Rights of prisoners | The Supreme Court of Justice of Panama rejected to order authorities to refrain from detaining accused persons during the Covid-19 pandemic except from very strongly justified cases. | The petitioner submitted a habeas corpus action against his detention during the Covid-19 pandemic. He was accused with participation in a criminal organization and was detained for 10 months without holding any trial in his case. He considered that this treatment violated his right to health since the risk factors mentioned by the authorities were not convincing, while in the prison, due to the insufficient food, the overcrowded surrounding and the emotional distress, he was vulnerable and was likely to be infected with Covid-19. The Supreme Court of Justice rejected to provide a general order for the authorities to refrain from detaining persons during the public health emergency except from very strongly justified cases. The Supreme Court of Justice admitted the individual claim of the petitioner but rejected it in the merits since the authorities managed to demonstrate convincing justification for the detention, the escape of the petitioner was particularly high. | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/panama-supreme-court-panama-file-no-225-2020-2020-05-08 | |||
