Petro Threatens to Oust Colombia’s Mayors Over Property Tax Protests

Written on 04/15/2026
Josep Freixes
Petro threatened to remove from office any mayors who encourage protests against the increase in property tax in Colombia. Credit: Josep Maria Freixes / Colombia One.

The warning by President Gustavo Petro to mayors is the latest chapter in the controversy unfolding in Colombia over the increase in the property tax. While the Colombian president threatened to remove local leaders who, in his view, promote or allow protests over the rise in this tax, criticism has only just begun.

Petro’s warning came yesterday amid road blockades and demonstrations in several regions of the country, stemming from social protests over the increase in this tax, which, according to the president, depends on municipalities and not the national government.

Nevertheless, the threat of potential removals immediately sparked a political storm and opened a new front of confrontation between the Government and local authorities, most of them politically aligned with the opposition.

The truth is that the South American country is experiencing a growing climate of protest against the updating of cadastral valuations, which has driven up property tax bills in numerous municipalities. What began as tax discontent quickly turned into a broader conflict, with institutional implications and a deeper debate over the limits of presidential power.

Petro threatens to oust Colombia mayors over property tax protests

The trigger of the crisis has been the updating of cadastral valuations in hundreds of municipalities across the country, a process led by the Agustin Codazzi Geographic Institute. This review, based on recent regulations, aimed to adjust property values to their real market price, a measure the Government considers key to modernizing the tax system and advancing fiscal equity.

However, the impact has been immediate and, in many cases, disproportionate. In several regions, especially in Santander and Boyaca, property tax increases have multiplied several times over, generating outrage among small and medium-sized rural landowners.

Protests soon followed. Blockades on strategic roads paralyzed mobility and caused significant economic losses. Demonstrators demanded a review of the valuations, a freeze on the tax, and greater participation in decisions affecting their territories.

For its part, the Government has defended the measure. Petro has insisted that the update responds to a legal obligation and the need to correct historical distortions in the tax system, while also maintaining that it seeks to ensure that wealthier sectors contribute more to the state.

One of the most controversial points in the debate is who actually bears responsibility for the tax increase. While the Government insists that the valuation adjustment is technical and necessary, it has also pointed out that the property tax rate is set by municipalities.

In other words, although the cadastral value is defined at the national level, it is mayors and municipal councils who ultimately determine the percentage charged. Petro has been emphatic on this point and has urged local authorities to reduce rates to mitigate the impact on citizens.

Direct targeting of opposition mayors

That interpretation has been rejected by several local leaders and territorial organizations, which argue that mayors are acting in accordance with current law and cannot be held politically responsible for an update they do not directly control.

The controversy has highlighted a structural problem: the disconnect between technical cadastral decisions and the real capacity of territories to absorb their effects without triggering social crises.

While Petro defends updating cadastral valuations to bring them in line with reality after years of being frozen as an obligation under the Colombian Peace Agreement, “so that landowners pay taxes to municipalities,” the president lashed out at certain mayors aligned with the opposition to his government for not “adjusting the rate” and preventing disproportionate increases for the broader population.

“Mayors must submit to municipal councils a proposal to exempt the poorest property owners, lower rates for the middle class, and charge much more to the wealthy who use the municipality for their lands, beauty, and resources and do not pay taxes,” he said.

Threats of removal from office

Amid this scenario, the president’s statements went further. After pointing to local authorities as responsible for the widespread increases, Petro suggested that mayors who do not act to contain social unrest or who, in his interpretation, are promoting the protests, could be removed, even alluding to the possibility of exceptional measures.

According to him, the protests—particularly significant in the Santander region—are part of the political strategy of the uribismo presidential campaign: “I repeat to the people misled in Santander about those cadastral assessments. … I ask the uribista rank and file that organized the strike to withdraw, or I will act as the law orders. There are priorities, and the solution to the cadastral assessment is not at the national level but in the municipalities.”

In his warning to local leaders, Gustavo Petro told them that “peace is a right, period. Do not gouge anyone’s eyes out; I will not imprison them, but mayors, as public servants, are accountable to me. So they have until today to prepare the initiative and for the barricades to be lifted.”

The announcement triggered an immediate reaction. From different sectors, it was recalled that, in Colombia, the president does not have the direct authority to remove mayors on his own decision, since they are elected by popular vote and their possible removal from office depends on judicial or disciplinary proceedings.

Various political and legal actors warned that the president’s words could be interpreted as undue pressure on territorial autonomy, one of the pillars of Colombia’s political system.

Despite this, Petro has maintained his stance and has hardened his tone. In the context of the farmers’ strike, he has insisted that local authorities must act to restore order, which his critics have read as an escalation in institutional confrontation.