What Happened
President José Raúl Mulino ruled out using a decree to make ethanol mandatory in Panama, saying the issue belongs in the National Assembly. He argued that the debate over the fuel blend had been pulled away from technical discussion and into political confrontation.
Mulino also blamed controversy, speculation and political noise for the collapse of the initiative in the legislature. During his Thursday press conference, he said he had spoken with someone about the matter, but did not identify the person.
Legislative Setback
The National Assembly suspended bill 443 on Monday, just as the ordinary legislative session was ending. The proposal sought to reaffirm the mandatory use of ethanol in the country, but it faced heavy criticism over possible conflicts of interest tied to the industry.
Among the names raised in the debate were business links involving sugar producers interested in ethanol production. References in the discussion included La Central Azucarero Alanje, Central Azucarera La Estrella, Azucarera Nacional and Central Azucarero La Victoria. The scrutiny also extended to people connected to public officials and advisers close to the presidency.
Political and Business Tensions
The controversy grew because the ethanol discussion touched both energy policy and private-sector interests. Critics argued that the policy should not advance without clearer separation between public decision-making and business ties connected to production.
Mulino’s comments make clear that the Executive Branch is not preparing to bypass lawmakers through a decree. Instead, he signaled that any future move would depend on the Assembly and on whether the political climate allows the proposal to return in another legislative period.
What This Means
The decision leaves the ethanol debate unresolved, with the next step now centered in the legislative arena. Supporters and opponents of the mandate remain divided over whether Panama should move toward obligatory ethanol use and how such a policy should be approved.
For now, the issue remains one of the most politically sensitive energy debates in the country, combining fuel policy, business interests and questions about the proper role of the Executive and Legislative branches in approving changes that affect the national market.