Panama Constitutional history

Panama has had four constitutions throughout its history: the first was from 1904, this first text was
promulgated in February 1904, three months after the separation from Colombia, and was inspired by
the Colombian Constitution of 1886. The one of 1941, that of 1946, and that of 1972.

Background. When Panama separated from Spain and joined Bolivarian Colombia, the Cúcuta
Constitution of October 6, 1821, had just been promulgated in that country. This was the first republican
constitution to govern Panama. In its Title VIII, and under the insignificant name of "General Provisions",
said Constitution contained the fundamental rights then known, that is, penal guarantees and the classic
freedoms of speech, petition, and inviolability of property and home. However, this chapter did not
consecrate religious freedom, assembly, or of association.

The Colombian constitutions that followed, and that governed the Isthmus, namely, those of 1830 and
1832 followed the same pattern as the Constitution of 1821, containing almost the same rights. The
same happened with the Constitution of 1840, except that by then Panama had separated from
Colombia and by 1841 had already promulgated a constitution that followed the model of the
Constitution of Granada of 1832.

The following Colombian Constitution, that is, that of the so-called Granadina Confederation,
promulgated in 1858, enshrined for the first time in Colombian constitutionalism all the classical
individual rights. This Constitution recognizes the right to religious freedom, freedom of expression,
assembly, association, etc., in a broad and unrestricted manner.

This Constitution was followed by the famous Constitution of the United States of Colombia,
promulgated in 1863 in Río Negro. Under the title of "Guarantee of individual rights," it established such
rights in an even broader way than the Constitution of 1858.

As is well known, the Río Negro Constitution established the federal system. Panama thus became a
federated state. In this capacity, and in the development of the quoted federal Constitution, he issued
and had six Constitutions, corresponding respectively to the years 1863, 1865, 1868, 1870, 1873, and
1875. Finally, the Constitution of 1886, under the regime of the Regeneration of Núñez, reinstituted
centralism in Colombia and put an end to the Federal State of the Isthmus. Colombia became a strictly
unitary country and Panama a province of the same.

The Constitution of 1904.

When Panama separated from Colombia in 1903, the quoted Constitution of 1886 governed the
Isthmus. It is also the Constitution that most influenced the constitution of 1904. Hence, the
fundamental rights that appear in our first republican Constitution are almost the same as those that
appear in the previous Colombian constitution.

Thus, the most critical group of individual rights in Panamanian constitutionalism has been consolidated
since 1904. From that Constitution comes the prohibition of privileges and privileges, the right to
assembly, the right to the free movement of people within the country, as well as freedom of worship,
freedom of expression, the inviolability of the home, the inviolability of correspondence, the right to
choose a profession, trade or occupation, respect for private property and the protection of the author's
intellectual property over his works and inventions. Also enshrined in Panamanian constitutionalism,
starting in 1904, is the power of the State to temporarily suspend some of these individual guarantees,
and fundamental criminal guarantees are established.

The Constitution of 1941.

Only with the German Constitution of Bismark of the 19th century and the Mexican Constitution of the
second decade of the last century, Constitutional Law, in those States that maintained capitalist
economies, begins a process of recognition of social rights. We say that the constitutional phenomenon
occurs in those States that maintained capitalist economies, because the Soviet revolution of 1917
brought to the Soviet Union, along with a totalitarian political system, and a socialist system,
economically, a broad recognition of the social rights of people, at the expense of most individual
guarantees.

Attentive to the evolution of Comparative Constitutional Law, Dr. José Dolores Moscote, -maximum
Panamanian constitutionalist of the first half of the 20th century-, begins to manifest in his writings, the
need to update the constitutional text of 1904, to adapt it to the new constitutional currents. Thus, and
for the political reasons that are determined by the events of those years, the Constitution of 1941 was
born, which consecrates, for the first time and very briefly, the recognition of some social rights, as well
as the social function that must be enforced by private property.

In terms of political rights, let's say it bluntly, the 1941 Constitution has the merit of consecrating for the
first time and in a systematic way, the recognition of the political rights of citizens. Even though this
Constitution continues to define citizenship in favor of Panamanian men over 21 years of age, it
establishes how citizenship is lost and how citizenship is suspended, and it defines suffrage as a right and
as a duty of all active citizens. and establishes for the first time at the constitutional level the
characteristics of the vote, that is, it should be direct, secret, and equal. Likewise, in terms of public
finances, the legacy of the 1941 Constitution is important.

The Constitution of 1946.

It is from the Constitution of 1946, that the Panamanian Constitutional Law develops in detail the
recognition of social rights. Thus, in family matters, the legal value of de facto unions is recognized and
discrimination to the detriment of children born out of legal marriage is eliminated. Likewise, the
contributions of this Constitution regarding the right to work, educational matters, cultural matters, and
health matters are very important.

With respect to political rights, the 1946 Constitution, despite the fact that it fundamentally repeats the
1941 Constitution, consecrates, in our opinion, two very important innovations: it establishes for the
first time, in the Constitution, that all citizens are citizens Panamanians over 21 years of age, regardless
of sex; and it is consecrated that the formation of political parties that are based on sex, race or religion,
or that tend to destroy the democratic form of government, is not lawful.

Of great value and importance is the constitutional reform that was made to the text of the 1946
Constitution a decade later, in 1956. In this important reform, the notion of the Electoral Tribunal was
born into the legal life of the country, as we know it today. day. An Electoral Tribunal is made up of
three Magistrates, each one appointed by each of the State bodies. Electoral Tribunal to which
attributed the exclusive functions of regulating the electoral law, prosecuting, and punishing electoral
misdemeanors and crimes, having legislative initiative in electoral matters, raising the electoral census,
issuing instructions for the holding of national elections, and others.

The Constitution of 1972.

The 1972 Constitution originates from the legitimization of the military coup on October 11, 1968. In the
opinion of Dr. Carlos Bolívar Pedreschi, there are two articles that define the 1972 Constitution: article 2
and transitory article 277.

While article 2 established in the 1946 Constitution that the State bodies should act independently from
each other, but in harmonious collaboration; in 1972, that harmonious collaboration was extended, by
virtue of the text of the article, to the Public Force. While transitory article 277, granted extraordinary
powers for a defined time, to the then Commander-in-Chief of the National Guard, powers that in fact
centralized the exercise of all public power in the Public Force, and of all transcendental powers of the
State.

Despite its dictatorial imprint, the 1972 constitutional text further develops the content of social rights,
adding to this issue the important agrarian and ecological regimes. In addition, the 1972 Constitution
modernizes the Chapter on Public Finance and the National Economy, chapters that last until the current
text.

The Constitution of 1983. Although the ink of the constitutional debate has not yet dried on the nature
of the constitutional reforms of 1983, two (2) of the most notorious constitutionalists that the Republic
has ever had, -Dr. César Quintero (q.e.p.d. ) and Dr. Carlos Bolívar Pedreschi-, coincide in ascribing to the
constitutional reforms of 1983 their own nature, in such a way that what arose in the constitutional
content should be more appropriately called "1983 Constitution" and not "Constitutional Reforms of
1983 to the 1972 Constitution”.

Both authors agree in maintaining that the effective democratization of the 1972 Constitution is
achieved with the 1983 reform movement, which is why the product of said movement is the
emergence of a new constitutional text that has nothing to do with the military character. of the one
whom he reformed. Therefore, they insist, the National History should refer to this reformist movement,
and its result, as to the 1983 Constitution.

Thus, by virtue of the constitutional reform of 1983, the reference to the Public Force is eliminated from
the text of article 2 of the Constitution, the Legislative body is democratized, and important reforms are
made to the title dedicated to the Administration of Justice and the process state budget.

The 1994 Constitutional Reform. Finally, the 1994 Constitutional Reform is the product of a broad
national consensus, achieved between the country's political forces and civil society, by virtue of which
the country is completely demilitarized, outlawing the army and raising constitutional rank, important
provisions related to the administration of the Panama Canal, in the prelude to the reversion of the
main asset that the Republic has at the service of national development.

It is important to note that a third reform, intended to modify article 308 of the National Constitution,
by adding the possibility of reforming it, by calling for the celebration of a Parallel Constituent Assembly.
This reform was approved by the 1990-1994 Assembly but was rejected by the 1994-1999 Assembly, for
which reason its text did not enter into force. Perhaps, if the legislators of the 1994-1999 five-year
period had had the vision of their predecessors, today we would not be immersed in the controversy
regarding the Constituent Assembly.