CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE

MADAM PRESIDENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE — FULL COURT
PRESENT

I, RODRIGO JULIO MOLINA ORTEGA, attorney-at-law, duly licensed to practice law under Professional License No. 1434, with professional address at Calle La Rotonda y Mar del Sur, Edificio Brisa Marina, Apartment 7A, email address [rjm@moliasoc.com], website [www.molinaco.com], Juan Díaz corregimiento, Province and District of Panama, acting in my own name and on my own behalf, respectfully appear before the Full Court of the Honorable Supreme Court of Justice, in exercise of the public constitutional action provided for in the Political Constitution and governed by Articles 2559 et seq. of the Judicial Code, for the purpose of formally filing this CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE against Article 2 of Law 407 of November 3, 2023, entitled, “Prohibiting the Granting of Concessions for the Exploration, Extraction, Transportation, and Processing of Metallic Mining throughout the National Territory.”

This action is based upon the direct conflict which, in the Applicant's view, exists between the absolute prohibition contained in Article 2 of Law 407 of 2023 and Articles 1, 2, 121, 163(1), 257(5) and (6), 259, and 282 of the Political Constitution of the Republic of Panama, in connection with the principles of constitutional supremacy, national economic sovereignty, State ownership of subsoil resources, the rational utilization of non-renewable natural resources, and the orientation of economic activity toward increasing national wealth and distributing its benefits.

This petition sets forth, separately and specifically, the constitutional infringement attributable to each provision invoked, for purposes of satisfying the special admissibility requirements established by Article 2560 of the Judicial Code.

I. ACT CHALLENGED AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Article 2 of Law No. 407 of November 3, 2023, published in Official Gazette No. 29904 of November 3, 2023, is hereby challenged as unconstitutional. It provides as follows:

“Article 2. The provisions of the preceding article entail that the Ministry of Commerce and Industries may not grant concessions for the exploration, extraction, transportation, and processing of metallic minerals in the Republic of Panama, and that it shall summarily reject any new application submitted for the purpose of obtaining such concessions as of the enactment of this Law.”

The challenged provision therefore establishes a general prohibition affecting the administrative authority to grant concessions for certain activities related to the exploitation of metallic minerals.

II. JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE

The Full Court of the Honorable Supreme Court of Justice has jurisdiction to hear constitutional challenges, in the exercise of its constitutional function of safeguarding the integrity of the Political Constitution of the Republic.

Article 2559 of the Judicial Code expressly recognizes that any person, through legal counsel, may challenge before the Supreme Court of Justice laws and other acts issued by an authority that such person considers unconstitutional and may request the corresponding declaration of unconstitutionality.

Article 2560, in turn, requires the reproduction of the challenged provision and identification of the constitutional provisions allegedly infringed, together with the corresponding statement and explanation of the constitutional violation. This petition expressly addresses each of those requirements.

III. FACTS SUPPORTING THE CLAIM

FIRST:

The National Assembly enacted Law 407 of November 3, 2023, establishing a prohibition on the granting of concessions for activities relating to the exploration, extraction, transportation, and processing of metallic minerals within the national territory.

SECOND:

Article 2 of said Law expressly provides that the Ministry of Commerce and Industries “may not grant concessions” for the activities described therein and that it must summarily reject any new application submitted to obtain such concessions.

THIRD:

The prohibition contained in the challenged provision is general in nature and affects a method of exploiting mineral resources that the Constitution itself expressly contemplates within the legal regime governing subsoil wealth.

FOURTH:

Article 257 of the Political Constitution provides that subsoil wealth belongs to the State and establishes, in paragraphs 5 and 6, that such wealth, mines, and deposits may be exploited through State-owned or mixed enterprises or may be subject to concessions and other contracts for their exploitation, in accordance with the Law.

FIFTH:

The Constitution does not conceive of mineral resources exclusively as assets that must remain unexploited, but rather as assets belonging to the State whose utilization must occur within the constitutional, legal, environmental, and public-interest framework.

SIXTH:

Article 121 of the Constitution provides that the Law shall regulate the utilization of non-renewable natural resources in order to prevent their use from causing social, economic, or environmental harm.

It follows that the constitutional framers adopted a model of regulation and rational utilization, rather than a constitutional mandate imposing an absolute prohibition on the utilization of non-renewable natural resources.

SEVENTH:

The Constitution further provides that concessions for the exploitation of the soil and subsoil must be guided by social welfare and the public interest.

Accordingly, the constitutional framework does not conceive of a mining concession as an absolute right belonging to a private party, but rather as a legal instrument through which the State may authorize the economic utilization of assets that constitutionally belong to the State, subject to conditions, controls, consideration, oversight, and protection of the collective interest.

EIGHTH:

The challenged provision eliminates, through a general and indefinite legislative prohibition, the possibility for the State to employ the concession mechanism for the utilization of certain metallic mineral resources.

NINTH:

This petition does not contend that private parties possess an unrestricted constitutional right to obtain a mining concession.

Rather, the challenge concerns the Legislature's elimination, in general and absolute terms, of one method for utilizing assets belonging to the State, without the Law itself establishing an alternative mechanism for State exploitation that would permit the fulfillment of the constitutional objectives of administration, rational utilization, generation of national wealth, and collective benefit derived from such resources.

TENTH:

The present action must be distinguished from any claim seeking to disregard the State's environmental obligations.

On the contrary, the Applicant recognizes that environmental protection, public health, water resources, ecosystems, and the prevention of social and environmental harm constitute indispensable constitutional limitations upon any mining activity.

The contention is that such objectives should be achieved through regulation, oversight, environmental assessment, technical requirements, liability mechanisms, and other constitutionally legitimate controls, without necessarily requiring the absolute and indefinite elimination of the concession mechanism with respect to all metallic minerals throughout the national territory.

IV. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND AND CLARIFICATION REGARDING THIS ACTION

The Applicant is aware that, subsequent to the enactment of Law 407, other constitutional actions relating to such legislation have been filed and that some were not admitted by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Justice for reasons relating to formal requirements and insufficient presentation of the grounds of constitutional infringement.

Accordingly, this petition is structured differently, setting forth separately:

1. The constitutional provision allegedly infringed.

2. The constitutional content of such provision.

3. The regulatory content of challenged Article 2.

4. The specific point of conflict.

5. The manner in which the infringement occurs.

6. The relationship between State ownership of resources and the constitutional regime governing their utilization.

7. The dimension of national economic sovereignty.

This structure is intended to strictly satisfy the requirement for a clear and reasoned statement of the constitutional infringement imposed by the Judicial Code.

V. CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS ALLEGEDLY INFRINGED AND GROUNDS OF INFRINGEMENT

A. INFRINGEMENT OF ARTICLE 1 OF THE POLITICAL CONSTITUTION: SOVEREIGNTY AND INDEPENDENCE OF THE PANAMANIAN STATE

Article 1 of the Constitution provides:

“The Panamanian Nation is organized as a sovereign and independent State, whose name is the Republic of Panama.”

Grounds of the Infringement

State sovereignty is not limited to the political or territorial dimension; it also encompasses the constitutional authority of the Republic to determine the disposition, administration, regulation, and utilization of assets and resources belonging to the State.

Within that sphere lies the constitutional public ownership of subsoil wealth and mineral deposits.

Article 257 expressly recognizes that such wealth belongs to the State. Consequently, national sovereignty encompasses the authority to determine, within constitutional limits, how those resources are to be administered and utilized.

The infringement occurs when a statutory provision transforms the constitutionally recognized authority to administer and utilize State resources into an absolute prohibition preventing the State itself from employing one of the mechanisms expressly contemplated by the Constitution.

It is not alleged that Article 1, standing alone, confers a right to exploit minerals. Rather, the alleged infringement arises from the systematic relationship among the principle of State sovereignty and Articles 121, 257, 259, and 282 of the Constitution.

The challenged provision improperly restricts the State's decision-making authority over assets that constitutionally belong to it and must therefore be examined in light of the principle of national economic sovereignty.

B. INFRINGEMENT OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE POLITICAL CONSTITUTION

Article 2 provides:

“Public power emanates solely from the people. It is exercised by the State in accordance with this Constitution, through the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches, which act in a limited and separate manner, but in harmonious cooperation.”

Grounds of the Infringement

The exercise of public power is constitutionally limited.

The National Assembly possesses legislative authority, but such authority is not unlimited. The Legislature must exercise its powers within the matters and principles established by the Constitution.

Where the Constitution expressly determines that certain assets belong to the State and may be exploited through State-owned enterprises, mixed enterprises, or concessions, the Legislature may regulate the methods of exploitation, establish requirements, impose constitutionally justified specific prohibitions, and establish environmental, economic, and social conditions.

However, legislative authority may not be exercised in a manner that empties of practical substance a constitutionally recognized option expressly contemplated by the Constitution, absent a sufficient constitutional justification compatible with the Constitution as a whole.

The alleged infringement precisely consists in the fact that Article 2 of Law 407 converts the statutory regulation of concessions into an absolute prohibition with respect to the activities described therein, substantially reducing the practical content of the concession mechanism contemplated in paragraphs 5 and 6 of Article 257.

C. INFRINGEMENT OF ARTICLE 121 OF THE POLITICAL CONSTITUTION

Article 121 provides:

“The Law shall regulate the utilization of non-renewable natural resources in order to prevent social, economic, and environmental harm arising therefrom.”

Grounds of the Infringement

The Constitution imposes upon the Legislature a mandate to regulate the utilization of non-renewable natural resources.

The constitutional purpose is to prevent social, economic, and environmental harm.

The challenged provision, however, does not establish a special regime for the sustainable utilization of metallic minerals, nor does it establish differentiated protection parameters or technical conditions for their potential utilization under strict controls.

Instead, it provides that the Ministry of Commerce and Industries “may not grant concessions” and must summarily reject any new application.

The constitutionally relevant distinction is that regulating utilization does not necessarily mean indefinitely eliminating a constitutionally recognized method of utilization.

Article 121 must be interpreted together with Articles 257 and 259. The constitutional mandate is to prevent harm through appropriate regulation, whereas Article 2 of Law 407 chooses to exclude, in general terms, the concession mechanism with respect to metallic mining.

The alleged infringement is therefore direct, because the Law substitutes the constitutional regime of regulation and utilization with a general prohibition preventing the State from determining, on a case-by-case basis and subject to public-interest conditions, whether a particular project may be environmentally, socially, and economically viable.

D. INFRINGEMENT OF ARTICLE 163(1) OF THE POLITICAL CONSTITUTION

Paragraph 1 of Article 163 provides that the National Assembly is prohibited from:

“Enacting laws that contravene the letter or spirit of this Constitution.”

Grounds of the Infringement

This provision constitutes an express manifestation of the principle of constitutional supremacy.

The ordinary Legislature may not disregard an express constitutional rule through legislation of inferior hierarchical rank.

Paragraphs 5 and 6 of Article 257 recognize a constitutional regime under which subsoil wealth is owned by the State and expressly contemplate its exploitation through State-owned or mixed enterprises and through concessions or other contracts.

Article 259, in turn, contemplates concessions for the exploitation of the soil and subsoil, subjecting them to social welfare and the public interest.

Accordingly, a law that generally and indefinitely prohibits all new concessions relating to metallic mining must be directly assessed against those constitutional provisions.

The infringement of Article 163(1) arises as a consequence of the conflict between the statutory prohibition and the constitutional regime governing the utilization of State-owned resources.

VI. INFRINGEMENT OF PARAGRAPH 5 OF ARTICLE 257 OF THE POLITICAL CONSTITUTION

Paragraph 5 of Article 257 provides:

“Subsoil wealth, which may be exploited by State-owned or mixed enterprises or may be subject to concessions or contracts for its exploitation as established by Law.”

Grounds of the Infringement

The constitutional provision recognizes three legally relevant elements:

First: subsoil wealth belongs to the State.

Second: it may be exploited by State-owned or mixed enterprises.

Third: it may be subject to concessions or contracts for its exploitation, in accordance with the Law.

The constitutional expression “may be subject to concessions or contracts” expressly recognizes the concession as a constitutionally permissible method of utilization.

The Law may regulate the exercise of that mechanism, impose requirements, establish environmental, economic, and technical conditions, and determine the procedures for granting concessions.

The constitutional issue raised herein, however, is different: whether the Legislature may generally and indefinitely eliminate that mechanism with respect to all metallic mining, without establishing an alternative mechanism that enables the State to fulfill the constitutional mandate concerning the utilization of subsoil wealth and the generation of benefits for the Nation.

The challenged Article 2 provides that the Ministry of Commerce and Industries “may not” grant such concessions.

Thus, the provision does not merely regulate the conditions governing concessions: it eliminates their legal availabilityfor an entire category of mineral resources.

The infringement therefore consists in emptying of practical substance a method of utilization expressly contemplated by the constitutional framers.

VII. INFRINGEMENT OF PARAGRAPH 6 OF ARTICLE 257 OF THE POLITICAL CONSTITUTION

Paragraph 6 of Article 257 establishes that mines and deposits of every kind belong to the State and may be exploited directly by the State, through State-owned or mixed enterprises, or may be subject to concessions or other contracts for their exploitation by private enterprises.

Grounds of the Infringement

This provision is even more specific than paragraph 5.

The constitutional framers expressly included within State ownership:

• mines;

• deposits;

• hydrocarbon deposits;

• quarries; and

• other resources enumerated therein.

At the same time, the Constitution recognizes two principal methods of exploitation:

a. direct State exploitation, through State-owned or mixed enterprises; and

b. exploitation through concessions or other contracts with private enterprises.

The Law may regulate these mechanisms, but Article 2 of Law 407 eliminates one of them generally with respect to metallic mining.

The alleged infringement does not consist in asserting that every mineral deposit must be granted under concession.

Rather, the infringement consists in the Law preventing the State, within the constitutional framework and subject to public-interest conditions, from resorting to the concession mechanism for metallic minerals.

The distinction is material: it is one thing for the Constitution to permit the State to decide whether or not to grant a particular exploitation right; it is another for a statute to eliminate, generally, the legal possibility of granting any concession for an entire category of resources expressly included by the constitutional framers within the concession regime.

VIII. INFRINGEMENT OF ARTICLE 259 OF THE POLITICAL CONSTITUTION

Article 259 provides:

“Concessions for the exploitation of the soil, subsoil, forests, and for the utilization of water, means of communication or transportation, and other public service enterprises, shall be guided by social welfare and the public interest.”

Grounds of the Infringement

The constitutional framers expressly contemplated the existence of concessions for the exploitation of the subsoil.

Article 259 does not conceive of concessions as a mechanism contrary to the Constitution. On the contrary, it establishes the constitutional standard that must guide their granting: social welfare and the public interest.

The challenged provision does not regulate how such social welfare is to be determined or how the public interest is to be protected in each concession.

Instead, it eliminates in advance every possibility for the Administration to make that constitutional determination with respect to metallic-mining concessions.

Consequently, the challenged provision replaces the constitutional and administrative assessment applicable to each concession with a general prohibition.

The constitutional conflict lies in the fact that Article 259 presupposes the existence of a concession regime subject to social welfare and the public interest, whereas Article 2 of Law 407 eliminates that possibility with respect to metallic mining.

IX. THEORY OF THE ECONOMIC SOVEREIGNTY OF THE REPUBLIC OF PANAMA

This petition incorporates, as an additional interpretive element, the theory of national economic sovereignty, understood as a principle derived from the body of constitutional provisions that vest the State with ownership and administration of certain strategic resources and direct it to orient economic activity toward increasing national wealth and ensuring collective benefit.

The Applicant does not seek to present economic sovereignty as an autonomous constitutional provision distinct from the provisions expressly cited herein.

Rather, the Applicant proposes a systematic interpretation of the Constitution.

1. Political Sovereignty and Sovereignty over National Resources

Article 1 declares Panama to be a sovereign and independent State.

Article 3 includes within the territory of the Republic the land surface, territorial sea, submarine continental shelf, and subsoil.

Article 257, in turn, establishes that subsoil wealth, mines, and deposits belong to the State.

From this normative relationship arises a relevant constitutional conclusion: national sovereignty encompasses the capacity of the Panamanian State to administer the strategic resources that the Constitution places under State ownership.

Economic sovereignty does not mean that the State possesses unlimited freedom to exploit natural resources.

It means that decisions concerning such resources must remain subject to the Panamanian constitutional order and must be directed toward the national interest.

2. Economic Sovereignty as Responsible Administration of State Assets

Mineral resources are not constitutionally conceived as ordinary private assets.

The Constitution incorporates them into State ownership and establishes specific mechanisms for their utilization.

Accordingly, legislative decisions concerning such resources must simultaneously respect:

• State ownership;

• the public interest;

• social welfare;

• environmental protection;

• economic rationality;

• generation of national wealth; and

• distribution of benefits to the community.

3. Article 282 and the Generation of National Wealth

Article 282 of the Constitution provides that the State shall orient, direct, regulate, replace, or create economic activities, according to social needs, for the purpose of increasing national wealth and ensuring its benefits to the greatest possible number of inhabitants of the country.

This provision is fundamental to the interpretation of Articles 257 and 259.

The exploitation of natural resources owned by the State cannot be analyzed exclusively from the perspective of a private enterprise.

It must be analyzed from the perspective of national assets and collective benefit.

Precisely for that reason, a constitutionally permissible mining concession does not amount to privatization of the resource.

A concession constitutes a legal mechanism through which the State retains ownership of the resource and permits its exploitation subject to conditions established by Law and the corresponding contract.

4. A Concession Does Not Entail Loss of Economic Sovereignty

A concession concerning a resource owned by the State does not imply that the State loses constitutional ownership of that resource.

On the contrary, the Constitution itself establishes mechanisms for the reversion of mining rights that are not exercised within the term and under the conditions established by Law.

A concession may therefore be understood as an instrument through which economic sovereignty is exercised, provided that:

1. the State retains ownership of the resource;

2. clear conditions for exploitation are established;

3. adequate consideration is required;

4. the environment is protected;

5. State oversight is maintained;

6. the public interest is protected;

7. reasonable participation by the Nation in the economic benefits is ensured; and

8. mechanisms for reversion and liability are established.

5. Absolute Prohibition and the Principle of Economic Sovereignty

From this perspective, the constitutional problem presented by Article 2 does not merely concern the restriction of an economic activity.

The problem is that the Law eliminates a constitutional instrument for administering and utilizing assets belonging to the State, without replacing it with a constitutionally equivalent regime of State exploitation or with a mechanism capable of preserving the economic objectives arising from State ownership.

Economic sovereignty requires the Nation to retain effective legal capacity to determine how its strategic resources are to be utilized.

A legislative prohibition may be constitutionally permissible when it constitutes a temporary, reasoned, necessary measure compatible with the remainder of the Constitution.

However, where the prohibition is framed in general and indefinite terms and eliminates a mechanism expressly contemplated by Articles 257 and 259, a constitutional question arises that properly falls within the jurisdiction of the Full Court of the Supreme Court.

6. Economic Sovereignty and Environmental Protection

The theory advanced herein does not disregard the constitutional right to a healthy environment.

On the contrary, economic sovereignty must be exercised in accordance with Articles 118, 119, 120, and 121 of the Constitution.

True sovereignty over natural resources means that Panama must retain the authority to determine:

• which resources may be utilized;

• under what conditions;

• through which technologies;

• under what environmental standards;

• what economic consideration the State must receive;

• what oversight mechanisms must apply; and

• what benefits must accrue to Panamanian society.

Accordingly, environmental protection and economic sovereignty are not contradictory principles.

They are complementary elements of a constitutional policy of responsible utilization of national resources.

X. INFRINGEMENT OF ARTICLE 282 OF THE POLITICAL CONSTITUTION

Article 282 provides that the State shall direct and regulate economic activity according to social needs, for the purpose of increasing national wealth and ensuring its benefits to the greatest possible number of inhabitants.

Grounds of the Infringement

The constitutional provision recognizes an economic function of the State.

With respect to resources that constitutionally belong to the State, that function assumes particular significance.

Article 2 of Law 407 absolutely eliminates a mechanism through which the State could, under strict conditions, obtain revenues, consideration, investment, employment, infrastructure, technological development, and other benefits derived from the utilization of mineral resources.

The challenged provision does not establish, within its own framework, an alternative regime through which those resources may be economically administered and utilized by the State.

The alleged infringement therefore arises because the challenged general prohibition may result in the emptying of the State's constitutional economic function with respect to the administration of assets belonging to it.

It must again be clarified that this petition does not contend that Article 282 imposes an obligation to exploit every natural resource.

Rather, it contends that the Legislature must interpret economic prohibitions concerning State-owned assets harmoniously with the constitutional mandate to increase national wealth and ensure its benefits to the population.

XI. GENERAL AND SYSTEMATIC GROUNDS OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY

From the comprehensive comparison between the challenged provision and the Constitution, the following framework emerges:

CONSTITUTION

Article 1: Panama is a sovereign and independent State.

Article 121: non-renewable natural resources must be regulated in order to prevent social, economic, and environmental harm.

Article 257(5) and (6): subsoil wealth, mines, and deposits belong to the State and may be subject to State, mixed, or concession-based exploitation.

Article 259: concessions concerning the subsoil must be guided by social welfare and the public interest.

Article 282: the State must direct the economy toward increasing national wealth and ensuring its benefits to the greatest possible number of inhabitants.

Article 163(1): the National Assembly may not enact laws contrary to the letter or spirit of the Constitution.

LAW 407, ARTICLE 2

The Ministry of Commerce and Industries “may not grant concessions” for the exploration, extraction, transportation, and processing of metallic minerals and must summarily reject new applications.

The alleged constitutional conflict arises because the Legislature moved from regulating the conditions under which the State may grant concessions to completely eliminating the legal possibility of using that method of exploitation for metallic mining.

The central issue presented by this action is therefore whether such absolute elimination is compatible with the constitutional framework that expressly recognizes concessions as one of the methods for exploiting subsoil wealth, mines, and deposits belonging to the State.

XII. ADMISSIBILITY OF THIS PETITION

Article 2560 of the Judicial Code requires a petition to identify the constitutional provisions allegedly infringed and to state and explain the grounds of infringement.

In compliance with this requirement, this petition:

1. Reproduces verbatim the challenged statutory provision.

2. Individually identifies each constitutional provision allegedly infringed.

3. Explains the content of each constitutional provision.

4. Explains the regulatory content of Article 2 of Law 407.

5. Sets forth individually the conflict between the statutory and constitutional provisions.

6. Develops the grounds of infringement with respect to each constitutional provision.

7. Sets forth a systematic interpretation of the Constitution.

8. Develops the relationship among national sovereignty, economic sovereignty, natural resources, and State assets.

9. Expressly recognizes the environmental and social limitations established by the Constitution.

10. Does not assert the existence of an absolute right of private parties to obtain concessions.

11. Challenges exclusively the constitutional compatibility of the general and indefinite elimination of a method of exploitation expressly contemplated by the Constitution.

Accordingly, the Applicant respectfully requests that this action be admitted so that the Full Court may conduct the corresponding constitutional review.

XIII. RELIEF REQUESTED

For the foregoing reasons, the Applicant respectfully requests that the FULL COURT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE:

FIRST:

Admit this CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE filed against Article 2 of Law 407 of November 3, 2023.

SECOND:

Upon admission, serve the petition upon the appropriate official of the Public Ministry, in accordance with the procedure established by the Judicial Code. Article 2563 provides that, once the petition has been admitted, it shall be served upon the Attorney General of the Nation or the Attorney General for Administrative Matters so that the corresponding legal opinion may be issued.

THIRD:

Upon completion of the applicable constitutional and statutory proceedings, declare that Article 2 of Law 407 of November 3, 2023, is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, for infringing Articles:

• 1;

• 2;

• 121;

• 163(1);

• 257(5) and (6);

• 259; and

• 282

of the Political Constitution of the Republic of Panama.

FOURTH:

Order that the decision have the corresponding constitutional and legal effects with respect to the provision declared unconstitutional.

XIV. EVIDENCE

The Applicant requests that the following documentary evidence be admitted:

1. A copy of Law 407 of November 3, 2023, published in Official Gazette No. 29904 of November 3, 2023, particularly Article 2 thereof.

As this is a law published in the Official Gazette, Article 2561 of the Judicial Code permits its existence to be established by identifying the corresponding Official Gazette number and date.

2. An official copy or printout of the Political Constitution of the Republic of Panama, including the constitutional provisions invoked herein.

3. Any other documents and evidentiary materials that may be relevant and that may be timely incorporated into the record.

XV. LEGAL GROUNDS

This action is based upon Articles 1, 2, 121, 163(1), 206, 257(5) and (6), 259, and 282 of the Political Constitution of the Republic of Panama, as well as Articles 2559, 2560, 2561, 2563, and related provisions of the Judicial Code.

The Applicant also invokes the constitutional principles of constitutional supremacy, national sovereignty, economic sovereignty, State ownership of natural resources, public interest, social welfare, rational utilization of non-renewable natural resources, and the economic function of the State.

Panama, on the date of filing.

RODRIGO JULIO MOLINA ORTEGA
Attorney-at-Law
Professional License No. 1434
Calle La Rotonda y Mar del Sur
Edificio Brisa Marina, Apartment 7A
Email: rjm@moliasoc.com
Website: www.molinaco.com