Lawyer Ramiro Guerra expressed strong criticism of bill 163, which seeks to reform the Organic Law of the Social Security Fund (CSS), describing it as 'violating the National Constitution.' Guerra emphasized that this project represents a setback to the social constitutionalism that has characterized Panama since the Magna Carta of 1946 and labeled it as devastating for workers.
Guerra explained that the proposal eliminates the focus on the protection of collective and social rights, enshrined in the 1972 Constitution, thus undermining the social rights of citizens. According to the lawyer, this would directly affect the lives and livelihoods of workers by destroying the solidarity nature of the pension system, leading to insignificant pensions in a country with a high cost of living.
Additionally, Guerra warned that the project would allow the transfer of financial resources from the CSS to the private and foreign sectors, further weakening social security in Panama. He highlighted that this would benefit only international financial capital, to the detriment of workers. The lawyer expressed concern about the impact that this reform would have on women and young workers, pointing out that it would primarily affect the most vulnerable sectors in an unstable labor market.
The lawyer emphasized that if this law is approved, they will file constitutional lawsuits before the Supreme Court of Justice. He also mentioned that various social movements and organizations, especially those of women and youth, are preparing to protest against the reform. Guerra stressed the importance of maintaining a solidarity-based social security system and ensuring decent pensions for all Panamanians, rejecting an individualistic and exclusive model.
In conclusion, Guerra argued that bill 163 threatens to undermine the collective and social rights of Panamanian workers, contradicting the social approaches established in the Constitution. He highlighted the importance of strengthening the solidarity system and ensuring decent pensions for all citizens, rejecting a system that could lead to poverty and financial instability in old age.
