|
Panama The Judiciary
The Constitution establishes the Supreme Court as the highest
judicial body in the land. Judges must be Panamanian by birth, be
at least thirty-five years of age, hold a university degree in law,
and have practiced or taught law for at least ten years. The number
of members of the court is not fixed by the Constitution. In late
1987, there were nine justices, divided into three chambers, for
civil, penal, and administrative cases, with three justices in each
chamber. Judges (and their alternates) are nominated by the Cabinet
Council and subject to confirmation by the Legislative Assembly.
They serve for a term of ten years. Article 200 of the Constitution
provides for the replacement of two judges every two years. The
court also selects its own president every two years.
The Constitution defines the Supreme Court as the guardian of
"the integrity of the Constitution." In consultation with the
attorney general, it has the power to determine the
constitutionality of all laws, decrees, agreements, and other
governmental acts. The court also has jurisdiction over cases
involving actions or failure to act by public officials at all
levels. There are no appeals from decisions by the court.
Other legislation defines the system of lower courts. The
nation is divided into three judicial districts: the first
encompasses the provinces of Panamá, Colón, and Darién; the second,
Veraguas, Los Santos, Herrera, and Coclé; the third, Bocas del Toro
and Chiriquí
(see
fig. 1). Directly under the Supreme Court are
four superior tribunals, two for the first judicial district and
one each for the second and third districts. Within each province
there are two circuit courts, one for civil and one for criminal
cases. The lowest regular courts are the municipal courts located
in each of the nation's sixty-five municipal subdivisions. In the
tribunals, the judges are nominated by the Supreme Court, while
lower judges are appointed by the courts immediately above them.
The Constitution also creates a Public Ministry, headed by the
attorney general, who is assisted by the solicitor general, the
district and municipal attorneys, and other officials designated by
law. The attorney general and the solicitor general are appointed
in the same way as Supreme Court justices, but serve for no fixed
term. Lower-ranking officials are appointed by those immediately
above them. The functions of the Public Ministry include
supervising the conduct of public officials, serving as legal
advisers to other government officials, prosecuting violations of
the Constitution and other laws, and arraigning before the Supreme
Court officials over whom the Court "has jurisdiction." This
provision pointedly excludes members of the FDP.
Several constitutional provisions are designed to protect the
independence of the judiciary. These include articles that declare
that "magistrates and judges are independent in the exercise of
their functions and are subject only to the Constitution and the
law;" that "positions in the Judicial Organ are incompatible with
any participation in politics other than voting;" that judges
cannot be detained or arrested except with a "written order by the
judicial authority competent to judge them;" that the Supreme Court
and the attorney general control the preparation of the budget for
the judicial organ; and that judges "cannot be removed, suspended,
or transferred from the exercise of their functions except in cases
and according to the procedures prescribed by law."
The major defect in the judicial system lies in the manner in
which appointments are made to the judiciary. Appointments of
judges and of the attorney general are subject to the approval of
the Legislative Assembly, but that body has functioned as a rubber
stamp for candidates selected by the executive. Lower-level
appointments, made by superiors within the judicial organ, are not
subject to assembly approval. In addition, the first two Supreme
Court justices appointed after the 1984 elections were both former
attorneys general, closely associated with the government and even
involved in some of its most controversial actions, such as the
investigation of the murder of opposition leader Spadafora. As a
result, the opposition has denounced regularly the judicial system
for being a political organ controlled by the FDP and the PRD.
Numerous external observers, including the Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of American States
(OAS), the United States Department of State, and various human
rights organizations, also have criticized the lack of independence
of the Panamanian judiciary and of the Public Ministry
(see Administration of Justice
, ch. 5).
Data as of December 1987
|
