Colombia’s Constitutional Court Temporarily Halts Petro’s Economic Emergency

Written on 01/30/2026
Josep Freixes
The Constitutional Court of Colombia decided to provisionally suspend President Petro’s economic emergency decree. Credit: Avilajuan, CC BY 4.0.

Colombia’s Constitutional Court dealt a high-impact political and fiscal blow to Gustavo Petro’s government by provisionally suspending the economic emergency decree that the executive branch had promoted as a tool to expand its budgetary room for maneuver. The decision temporarily halts one of the central pillars of the president’s economic strategy, through which he sought to offset lost revenue following the failure of tax initiatives in Congress.

The precautionary ruling, while the high court studies the constitutionality of the decree in depth, opens a new front of tension between branches of government and reshapes the debate over the limits of the use of states of exception in Colombia, in an already highly polarized political and fiscal context ahead of this year’s elections.

For his part, President Gustavo Petro reacted with harsh criticism of the decision, warning it will have social “consequences” and accusing the justices of seeking to make society as a whole pay the debt rather than the “ultrarich,” which he says was the goal of his tax reform, rejected by the opposition majority in the legislature.

Colombia’s Constitutional Court temporarily halts Petro’s economic emergency

The full bench of the Constitutional Court decided to provisionally suspend the economic emergency declared by the government last December through a majority vote, applying a precautionary measure that freezes the effects of the decree until there is a final ruling. The decision, for now, prevents the executive from using extraordinary powers to issue economic measures with the force of law, including new taxes.

The decree had been conceived as the main instrument to collect around 11 trillion pesos (approximately US$3 billion) in additional revenue, mainly through levies on economic sectors and high-net-worth assets. The economic emergency, within Colombia’s constitutional framework, allows the president to adopt exceptional measures if extraordinary circumstances threaten the country’s economic stability.

However, the reporting justice argued preliminarily that the constitutional requirements to justify such a state of exception were not clear. Among the concerns raised was the possible weakening of Congress’ role, by using the emergency as an alternative mechanism to impose fiscal measures without the ordinary legislative process.

The decision is also significant for its historic nature. According to press reports, it is the first time the Court has adopted a provisional suspension of this kind against a presidential economic emergency decree, underscoring the institutional dimension of the standoff between the court and the executive.

The fiscal and political backdrop: the tax defeat in Congress

The economic emergency became the government’s main alternative after Congress rejected a tax reform aimed at increasing the fiscal burden on the wealthiest sectors and some industries. Faced with that political blockade, the executive opted to resort to exceptional powers in an attempt to secure resources for the national budget.

The government defended the measure by arguing that there was a significant deficit that put fiscal stability and the state’s ability to finance public policies and address security and debt challenges at risk. From the ruling party’s side, it was argued that the lack of revenue could translate into structural problems for the country if extraordinary measures were not adopted.

But from the opposition, the business sector, and some legal scholars, the measure was seen from the outset as a possible constitutional overreach. The central criticism pointed out that the mechanism requires extraordinary and unforeseeable situations, and that it cannot become a way to replace democratic debate on taxes in Congress.

The precautionary suspension confirms that those legal doubts carried weight within the court, although the substantive discussion about the legality and constitutionality of the decree is still pending.

Congress of Colombia.
In December, the conservative majority in an economic committee rejected the government’s tax reform proposal, which sought to balance the public deficit by 2026. Credit: Juan Diego Cano / Presidency of Colombia.

Petro’s reaction: warnings of crisis and political confrontation

President Gustavo Petro reacted critically to the judicial decision and warned that the country could face negative economic and social consequences if the emergency is permanently blocked. The president argued that the suspension would end up benefiting the wealthiest sectors and shifting the costs of the crisis onto the rest of the population.

In public messages, Petro insisted that the collapse of the decree could trigger a larger economic crisis and affect debt sustainability, in addition to limiting the state’s ability to respond to urgent social needs. He also pointed out that the judicial decision could have political effects on the future fiscal debate and the relationship with the next Congress.

The president also argued that the suspension does not automatically invalidate the measures adopted during the initial period of the decree’s validity, maintaining that those decisions retain a presumption of legality. This interpretation seeks to preserve part of the practical scope of the economic decisions already taken under the framework of the emergency.

In his political discourse, Petro has linked the debate to the question of who should bear the cost of fiscal adjustment, defending that his proposal sought to shift that burden to higher-income sectors.

“Now the consequences of sinking the emergency decree will come. To save the tax on the megarich, a larger crisis will be shifted and socialized, with the payment for the crisis, which they will try in the new Congress to make society pay, and we will always seek to prevent it. Ultimately, Colombian society will decide who paid the effects of the interest rate of the Banco de la Republica [Colombia’s Central Bank] and of the country’s fracking speculation — we just have to wait,” he wrote on his X social media account as soon as the news became known.

The economic emergency decree: a new chapter in the tension between the branches of government in Colombia

Hours later, the Colombian president intensified his criticism and accused the judiciary of “prejudging” and acting against his government. “When decades ago the Constitutional Court prohibited the provisional suspension of an emergency decree, the current Constitutional Court, without studying our reasons, decided to do so. This is literally prejudging, but it is also done for two reasons: Because it is a decree from my government and because it quickly suspends taxes on Colombia’s wealthiest sectors, against the construction of a social rule of law that the Constitution itself mandates,” he wrote.

Finally, Petro asserted that “we are facing a real rupture of the constitutional order, simply because there is a government that is a friend of the working people,” and maintained that “while I govern, any debt costs will not be paid by the working people.”

And all this while awaiting the decision of the same court regarding the decree that increased this year’s minimum wage — now called the living minimum — by 23%.

The provisional suspension of the decree leaves the government without one of its most ambitious tools to increase revenue in the short term, which complicates its fiscal room for maneuver and forces it to rethink its economic strategy at a politically sensitive moment.

At the same time, the decision reaffirms the role of the Constitutional Court as the final arbiter in the use of states of exception, a mechanism that has historically sparked debate in Colombia over its limits and its possible political use.

The country is now awaiting the court’s final ruling, which will not only determine the fate of the decree but will also set a precedent regarding the scope of presidential powers in economic matters. In the meantime, the institutional standoff continues, with implications that could extend beyond the fiscal sphere toward the overall balance of powers in Colombia.