The entry into force of Law 402 of 2023, which adopts the new Civil Procedure Code, is not merely a procedural change; it is a cultural and legal-procedural transformation of civil litigation. At the heart of this metamorphosis is the preliminary hearing, a stage that promises to eradicate the anachronism of the 'paper file' in favor of a justice that is face-to-face, immediate, and, above all, more efficient than the previous system. Under the old regime, civil procedure was an endless exchange of written documents, where the judge was often a distant figure who only made real contact with the case at the time of issuing a sentence, months or years after the dispute began. Guided by the principles of concentration and procedural economy, this phase allows for the cleansing of the process in a single act, whereas previously, defects of nullity or preliminary exceptions could drag on throughout the trial. The judge must be firm, maintaining a focus exclusively on the cleansing of the process, the fixing of the litigation, and the admission of evidence. If we manage to combine the structure of the new civil procedure with rigorous technical execution and adequate technological investment, Panama could finally emerge from the procedural paralysis of the last century. We no longer witness the indiscriminate admission of irrelevant evidence that merely sought to delay the process; in the preliminary phase, the parties must debate the usefulness and relevance of each piece of evidence before the judge, allowing only the essential to reach the final hearing. Another fundamental pillar is the institutionalization of mandatory conciliation. The old system saw alternative methods as a peripheral option; the new code places them at the threshold of the trial, making the fastest justice that which the parties themselves build. There is also a risk that the preliminary hearing could become a 'mini-trial' if the scope of the debate is not strictly delimited. The new code imposes a 'purity filter': if there are defects to correct or exceptions to resolve, it is done in the preliminary phase. Furthermore, the control of legality over evidence has undergone a 180-degree turn. According to Colombian author Hernando Morales Molina, 'The purpose of the preliminary hearing provides greater flexibility, situated between the initial fixation of the object of the claim and its final elucidation, as it allows for the modification, simplification, or reduction of the object… All of the above, without prejudice to the procedural purification, since it is where procedural defects are corrected and nullities caused priorly are prevented, as much as possible… From the evidentiary aspect, it presents the advantage that in the hearing the judge and the parties, by definitively determining the object of the process and, consequently, establishing the factual matter to be proven, can dispense with the practice of unnecessary evidence or decree those that are required by virtue of said precision…' (Morales Molina, Hernando. The preliminary hearing). Justice that delays is not justice; orality is, finally, our opportunity to change that reality.
