London-UK, August 14, 2025
A new agreement by the Supreme Court of Justice in Panama, which would grant justices and judges a retirement compensation equivalent to 100% of their final salary, has sparked a firestorm of protest from a broad coalition of local business lobbies, civil society groups, and legal experts. The controversial measure, seen as a blatant self-serving act, has been widely condemned as unconstitutional and has triggered calls for a constitutional challenge and the impeachment of all court members.
The agreement, published in the Official Gazette on August 8, creates a special fund designed to cover the difference between the pensions received from the Social Security Fund (CSS) and the total amount of their last salaries. The Judicial Branch would cover the cost of this fund. The Supreme Court has defended the measure by arguing that “to maintain judicial independence it is indispensable that judges receive a sufficient and irreducible remuneration, commensurate with the importance of the function they perform.” The agreement would also allow justices and judges to receive this benefit even if they retire before their constitutional term expires, a provision that has drawn particular scrutiny.
However, this justification has been met with widespread disbelief and outrage. Prominent legal and civil society groups have rallied to condemn the measure, arguing that it is a flagrant abuse of power and a direct violation of the constitution. Attorney and congressman Ernesto Cedeno, among others, has stated that the norm is openly unconstitutional, citing Article 163, numeral 3, of the Magna Carta, which mandates that all matters related to retirements must be regulated by law and explicitly prohibits congressmen from endorsing such payments through other mechanisms.
The Comptroller General of the Republic, Anel Flores, has been one of the most vocal opponents of the measure. She announced that she would file a constitutional challenge against the agreement, calling it “inconvenient for the State.” In a stinging public critique, she also declared her intention to file a motion to impeach all members of the Court, stating that they should not be the ones “deciding what to do themselves.” The comptroller’s office has questioned the lack of a financial or actuarial study to determine the total cost of the fund, expressing concern over the potential drain on public resources. In a bid to manage the public backlash, the Supreme Court of Justice announced on Wednesday a “partial suspension” of the retirement compensation for justices but confirmed it would remain in effect for judges, a move the comptroller dismissed as a “cosmetic embellishment.”
The controversy has also reignited public anger over a perceived lack of accountability and privilege within Panama’s political and judicial classes. The business sector, which has been dealing with the economic fallout of social unrest and the cancellation of a major mining contract, has been particularly critical. Business leaders have argued that the money being allocated to these special retirement funds should instead be used to address pressing social and economic needs, such as shoring up the country’s social security fund and increasing pensions for ordinary citizens. The Union of Panamanian Mine Workers, SUNTRACS, which was at the forefront of the protests that led to the mining contract’s annulment, has also denounced the move, seeing it as another example of a powerful elite enriching themselves at the expense of the public.
This latest controversy comes at a particularly sensitive time for Panama’s political landscape. The Supreme Court of Justice, which is supposed to be the final arbiter of law and justice, is now at the center of a major political and legal firestorm. The battle lines have been drawn between an institution seen as acting in its own self-interest and a broad coalition of civil society groups and legal figures who are determined to hold it accountable. The outcome of the constitutional challenge and the impeachment motions will not only determine the fate of the retirement fund but will also serve as a critical test of Panama’s democratic institutions and the rule of law.
