Teachers, students, and administrators from the University of Panama marched on Wednesday, November 22, to the Supreme Court of Justice to demand the ruling of unconstitutionality of Law 406.

Eduardo Flores, the rector of this university, announced that he will deliver to the university community a document outlining the arguments that the mining contract is unconstitutional and demanding a timely ruling from the Judicial Branch.

The document argues that “the legislative procedure followed for the approval of this contract-law violates the constitutional regulations of our legal system since, in this type of contract, once sent to the Assembly by the Executive Body, it must be only approved or rejected by law, but there is no power to return it in order for modifications to be made to its content as happened, as established in article 159, paragraph 15, of the Political Constitution."

Also, it is noted that “the contract, contained in Law 406, violates the constitutional norms on the ecological regime that obligate the State to guarantee that the population lives in a healthy environment free of contamination (Constitutional Article 118).”

“In addition, this contract law violates an article of the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights on economic, social, and cultural rights. (Ptocol of an Salvador), approved by Law 21 of October 22, 1992, which is part of the Constitutional Block, in accordance with a ruling of November 27, 2014, of the Plenary of the Supreme Court of Justice, because it violates the right of Panamanians to live in a healthy environment and implies the abandonment of the Panamanian State of the protection, preservation, and improvement of that environment," the document adds.

Finally, the University of Panama reiterated its call to that highest corporation of the Administration of Justice, “to make a statement in a timely manner and in accordance with the law, but also in accordance with the arguments made by the vast majority of the Panamanian people in favor of the unconstitutionality and inconvenience of the aforementioned mining contract.”