On February 23, 2016, Alexis Zuleta filed a claim of unconstitutionality with the Supreme Court, stating that the provisions of the Contract Law that were cited violated articles 18, 159, 259, 276 and 316 of the Constitution of the Republic of Panama.
Zuleta based the suspected violations alleging that through an unorthodox triangulation, a reconversion of another concession agreement was made between the State, PIMPSA, and PSA. He cited that according to art. 259 of the Constitution of Panama, all exploitation of land, subsoil, forest, use of water (...) shall be used in the best social and public interest. Additionally, he noted that the tax exemptions granted to PSA are unconstitutional, and that the National Assembly exceeded its powers by approving a contract in which the State is a party.
Resolution
As part of the process, the complaint was sent to the Attorney General, who confirmed that the Contract Law followed all the steps required by the laws of Panama and that the National Assembly only had the right to approve or reject them. The Supreme Court ruled, with 8 votes in favor and one abstention, that the provisions of the Contract Law challenged by Zuleta are, in effect, constitutional.