The Supreme Court of Justice (CSJ) did not admit an unconstitutionality claim filed against Law 256 of November 26, 2021, which establishes the obligation to issue electronic invoices or an equivalent document, to prove any operation related to a transfer, sale of goods, or provision of services.
We refer to the lawsuit filed on January 3 by the National Bar Association (CNA) and the Federation of Professional Associations of Panama, among other organizations.
In a ruling on April 28, which had the magistrate, Miriam Cheng Rosas, as rapporteur, the Court decided not to admit the legal appeal, arguing that the concept of constitutional infraction was not “clearly” supported. In that document, the magistrates also explain that in these cases, the argument “must be clear, accurate, specific, pertinent and sufficient”, but that this lawsuit does not meet these requirements. They emphasize that the concept of infraction was not adequately constructed and does not explain how this rule violates rights and rules of the Constitution.
They also detail that the plaintiffs claim that during the legislative debate, which led to the approval of Law 256 of 2021, there was no objective discussion to include lawyers and other liberal professions in the obligation of electronic invoicing, which would lead to the Court to carry out an assessment judgment on the performance of the Assembly, so this is beyond the powers of that justice corporation.
The magistrates of the Court also criticize that in the lawsuit a series of subjective and global affirmations are made that are not pertinent, because they are not of a constitutional nature.
