Panama’s Supreme Court of Justice is now handling multiple legal challenges against the municipal agreement that created the Municipal Police of Panama City, with Attorney General Luis Carlos Gómez Rudy urging the consolidation of two unconstitutionality lawsuits into a single case — and warning that the new force risks becoming a parallel police service outside constitutional bounds.
What Happened
Gómez Rudy asked the Supreme Court to merge into one file the unconstitutionality suits filed by lawyer and congressman Ernesto Cedeño and by René Isaac Barberena, both targeting Agreement No. 162 of June 17, 2025. Magistrate Carlos Villalobos serves as presiding judge in both cases. The Attorney General argued the suits should be resolved together because they challenge the same municipal agreement and contain coinciding arguments.
The prosecutor has already spoken in favor of declaring several provisions of the agreement unconstitutional, citing powers granted to the Municipal Police that he says belong properly to established police services: recruitment, body searches, vehicle registration, the use of non-lethal and lethal force, apprehension, and preventive detention. In his opinion submitted to the Court, Gómez Rudy warned that these powers “include rules that could mean the implementation of a police force parallel to the police service established by law.”
Last Wednesday, the Court opened a 10-business-day period for the presentation of arguments in both lawsuits, allowing interested parties to weigh in on the constitutionality of the agreement. Afterward, Magistrate Villalobos must prepare a draft ruling to be circulated among the other eight judges of the Court’s Plenary.
Separately, the Third Chamber of the Administrative Court is processing a lawsuit for annulment filed by the Ministry of Security against the same Agreement No. 162. That appeal, already admitted, seeks to annul the agreement entirely and will include its own period for evidence and arguments.
Background
Agreement No. 162 was approved by the Municipal Council of Panama at the request of Mayor Mayer Mizrachi. It transformed the former Municipal Surveillance Department into a Municipal Police, giving it a new structure, a more professional and hierarchical organization, and expanded powers.
The Attorney General grounded his position in Article 311 of Panama’s Constitution, which establishes that Panama will not have an army and that all police services must be subordinate to civil power under the leadership of the President of the Republic. That constitutional provision, born of Panama’s history following the abolition of its military, is central to the argument that security functions cannot be delegated to a municipal-level force operating outside the national police framework.
What This Means for Panama
The outcome of these cases will help define the limits of municipal authority over public security in Panama City and potentially set a precedent for other districts. If the Court strikes down key provisions, the Municipal Police could lose core operational powers or be disbanded in its current form; if the agreement survives, it would mark a significant expansion of local government’s role in policing.
With the Attorney General, congressmen, and the Ministry of Security all lined up against the agreement, Mayor Mizrachi’s flagship security initiative faces serious legal headwinds. The coming weeks will bring the close of the argument period before the Supreme Court, Magistrate Villalobos’s draft ruling, and the parallel annulment proceedings in the Third Chamber — key milestones to watch for anyone following the future of policing in Panama’s capital.
This story was originally reported by Newsroom Panama.