Colombia’s three highest courts confront President Gustavo Petro. In a development with few precedents in the history of Colombia, but one that has marked the government of President Gustavo Petro, the country’s three highest courts (the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court of Justice, and the Council of State) demanded that the president respect their decisions and comply with the constitutional (and democratic) order of the separation of the three branches of public power.
In the final stage of his term (he has three months left in power), what President Petro is doing is reaffirming the hallmark that characterized him throughout his four years in office: Confronting members of the judicial branch when the decisions of judges and magistrates are unfavorable to him.
Based on that dispute, he has been promoting the convening of a national constituent assembly to modify the Constitution, despite having sworn in stone when he was a candidate that if he reached the presidency, he would do nothing to change Colombia’s Political Constitution.
Colombia’s three highest courts confront President Gustavo Petro, who accuses the Council of State of favoring bankers’ interests
The most recent confrontation between the Judicial branch and the executive occurred because the Council of State (the highest authority in administrative litigation) provisionally suspended the effects of Decree 415 of April 20, 2026, through which the government regulated the transfer of 25 trillion pesos (US$6.6 billion) from pensioners who are in private pension funds so that the money would go to the public entity Colpensiones.
In response to that decision, President Petro called for legal action against the magistrate who made the ruling, Juan Enrique Bedoya Escobar, considering that he acted against the pension reform promoted by his Government.
“Given that the ruling by the Council of State magistrate favors the interests of bankers and goes against the general interest of workers and the current law that I show here, I ask that criminal charges for misconduct in office be brought against the reporting magistrate,” the president wrote.
In his message, he also took the opportunity to engage in political campaigning, as he called for voting for a president who would promote a constituent assembly. Among the range of candidates, the only one who agrees with Petro is Ivan Cepeda. Both belong to the leftist Historic Pact.
The Council of State immediately responded to the president in a rather angry tone. “The words expressed by the president of the Republic of Colombia on a widely disseminated social network require and demand a timely, clear, and forceful institutional response from the Council of State, toward which the accusations are now directed,” the court wrote in a statement.
A few lines later, the high court reminds the president that what is at stake is implementing the Constitution (something demanded by different sectors of society), not changing it: “The incendiary tone of the head of state neither merits nor justifies a response in a similar tone, but rather a balanced exercise that, in defense of our Constitution, in force and strengthened, reminds all those voices that wish to end, instead of implement, our charter of rights, of the capital importance that the separation of powers has in this and in all democracies.”
“The statements of the president of the Republic and of other heads of the executive sector are troubling. The misinformation and decontextualization of judicial decisions deteriorate institutional trust, weaken the rule of law that the country has built and defended, and translate into accusations and harassment against those who assume, every day, the responsibility of judging,” the Council of State’s response continues.
Supreme Court and Constitutional Court come out in defense of the Council of State
It also rejects President Petro invoking freedom of expression to “construct messages that privilege impact, and that not only endanger institutional integrity, but also threaten the physical integrity of people who, by making decisions based on the legal system, are intended to be prosecuted and are labeled as violators of that same legal order they defend.”
“When powers control each other, it is uncomfortable, but the fight against the immunities of power cannot cease,” the Council of State warns, and concludes: “Greater powers require greater controls, and excessive powers require effective and immediate controls. Judicial oversight of acts of the executive branch is not an obstacle to democracy; it is one of its principal guarantees.”
But the Council of State was not left alone. Magistrate Natalia Angel Cabo, vice president of the Constitutional Court, and magistrate Mauricio Lenis, president of the Supreme Court of Justice, issued strong warnings about the consequences that President Petro’s attack against the Council of State could leave behind.
“When institutions are attacked arbitrarily without there even being evidence, as could even have happened in the attacks against the Council of State’s decision, that gradually undermines trust in institutions and prevents them from carrying out their role as they should,” Angel Cabo said, while Lenis stated that it is normal for differences regarding judicial decisions to arise, but it is not normal when those criticisms turn into aggressions against the Council of State.