Thelaw ofPanama is based oncivil law with influences fromSpanish legal tradition andRoman laws. For the first several years of its existence Panamanian law depended upon thelegal code inherited fromColombia. The first Panamanian codes, promulgated in 1917, were patterned upon those of Colombia and other Latin American states that had earlier broken away from theSpanish Empire. Therefore, Panama's legal heritage incorporated elements from Spain and its colonies.
Several features ofAnglo-American law have also been accepted in Panama.Habeas corpus, a feature of Anglo-American legal procedure that is not found in many Latin American codes, has been constitutionally guaranteed in Panama.Judicial precedent, another Anglo-American practice, has also made some headway.Judges andmagistrates usually have had little leeway in matters of procedure, delays, and degrees of guilt.[1]
The Public Ministry provided for in theConstitution has defended the interest of the state, fostered the enforcement and execution of laws, judicial decisions, and administrative orders, supervised the official conduct and the performance of duty of public officials, prosecuted offenses of constitutional or legal provisions, and served as legal adviser to administrative officials. The functions of the Public Ministry are fulfilled by theattorney general of the republic, the solicitor general, thedistrict attorneys, and the municipal attorneys.[1]
There are two alternates for each official of the ministry; all are appointive positions. The attorney general, the solicitor general, and their alternates are executive appointees; district attorneys and municipal attorneys are appointed by their immediate superiors in the judicial system. They in turn appoint subordinate personnel in their own offices.[1]
In addition to the stipulations of "free, prompt, and uninterrupted" administration of justice and the establishment of the Public Ministry, the Constitution has several other statements about the application of laws, the treatment of citizens under the law, and the handling of prisoners. Article 21 guarantees freedom fromarbitrary arrest, and Article 22 provides forhabeas corpus. Article 29 prohibits thedeath penalty.[1]
Article 42 provides that "In criminal matters, a law favorable to the accused always has priority and retroactivity, even though the judgement may have become final." Article 163 gives the president power to grantpardons for political offenses, toreduce sentences, and to grantparole. Article 187 states that a person convicted of an offense against public order may not hold any judicial office in the future. Article 218 establishes trial by jury.[1]
Under a section of the Constitution headed "Individual and Social Rights and Duties," private citizens are assured that they can be prosecuted by government authorities only for violations of the Constitution or the law. The procedure forarrests is also described, stating that arrests may result from response to complaints made to the police or from direct action on the part of police or DENI agents at the scene of the crime or disturbance.[1]
The validity ofcitizen's arrest is recognized: "An offender surprised flagrante delicto may be apprehended by any person and must be delivered immediately to the authorities." No person may be held for more than twenty-four hours by the police without being brought before competent authority or being charged with an offense. The Constitution forbids arrest or detention for violation of purely civil obligations or for debts.[1]
During the course of an investigation, the accused and all witnesses are questioned, the latter under oath. The Constitution guarantees that no accused person may be forced toincriminate himself or herself, and the authorities are forbidden to force testimony from any close relative, whether related by blood or marriage, that is, "within the fourth degree of consanguinity or the second degree of affinity."[1]
Investigators may enter a person's home only with consent or a written order (search warrant) from a competent authority or to assist victims of crime or natural disaster. In general, all testimony must be presented in written form and be signed by investigators, accused, and witnesses. If a case warrants prosecution, it is referred to the appropriate court. Althoughbail is permissible in some cases, it is a privilege subject to many restrictions and may be denied at the request of the prosecutor if a judge concurs.[1]
Considerable evidence emerged that many constitutional provisions were not realized in the daily lives of Panamanian citizens as of the late 1980s. The most striking example involved the case ofDr. Hugo Spadafora, a former senior government official, who had criticized the role of the Defense Forces in politics and the alleged role ofNoriega in drug trafficking. Spadafora's headless body was found inCosta Rica near the border of Panama in September 1985 after reports that he had been taken into custody by members of the Defense Forces. There also were allegations[by whom?] that Dr. Mauro Zúñiga, head of an opposition group called the National Civilian Coordinating Committee (Coordinador Civilista Nacional—COCINA), was abducted and beaten.[1]
Although the Constitution provides forhabeas corpus and for the prompt and uninterrupted administration of justice, several incidents suggested that these principles were sometimes violated. Note that various articles of the Constitution guaranteeing basic rights were suspended during the temporarystate of emergency declared in 1987.[2]Moreover, the Panamanian government responded with excessive[quantify] brutality to popular marches and demonstrations in Panama in mid-1987. According to a December 1987United States Senate staff report on Panama, over 1,500 persons were arrested[by whom?] between June and September 1987. Credible evidence suggests that many of them were subjected to cruel and inhuman treatment while in jail.[1]
This article incorporates text from this source, which is in thepublic domain. Steve C. Ropp (December 1987). Sandra W. Meditz and Dennis M. Hanratty (ed.).Panama: A Country Study.Federal Research Division. Administration of Justice.During the 1987 state of emergency, we were told, the secretary of the Supreme Court quickly noted in each judicial file that appeals were not legally admissible. Even the right ofhabeas corpus was suspended, including those petitions that were being processed at the time the state of emergency was decreed.