The Constitutional Court of Colombia has declared the State of Economic and Social Emergency decree unconstitutional, while also striking down JEP interpretative rules and issuing an inhibitory ruling on a challenge to the Penal Code definition of “protected person.”
The Constitutional Court of Colombia, in Communicado 14 issued a release on 9 April 2026, delivered three rulings addressing the Special Jurisdiction for Peace (JEP), provisions of the Colombian Penal Code, and a State of Economic and Social Emergency declared by the government.
Restrictions on JEP jurisprudential rules struck down
In Sentence C-073/26, the Court declared unconstitutional (inexequible) several interpretative rules adopted by the JEP’s Appeal Section in Senit 5, 8 and 9. These rules introduced concepts such as “second-order selection”, “midpoint responsibility” and “near-maximum responsibility”.
The Court held that these concepts violated the principles of legality, due process and proportionality of sanctions. It further ruled that neither the Final Peace Agreement nor statutory JEP legislation authorised the creation of a “positive individual selection” function for the Chamber for the Definition of Legal Situations.
The ruling stressed that the JEP must prioritise restorative justice and the centrality of victims, noting that opening new individual proceedings against non-essential participants risks dispersing attention away from those with the greatest responsibility for the most serious crimes.
Inhibitory ruling on “protected person” definition in penal code
In Sentence C-074/26, the Court issued an inhibitory ruling in a case challenging the term “protected person” in several articles of the Colombian Penal Code relating to war crimes and sexual violence.
The lawsuit alleged a “relative legislative omission”, arguing that the definition excluded combatants who are victims of sexual violence committed by members of their own armed group, described as “intra-ranks” violence.
The Court found that the claim did not meet the requirements of clarity, certainty, pertinence and sufficiency required for substantive constitutional review.
Magistrate Jorge Enrique Ibáñez Najar issued a dissent, stating that the Court missed a historic opportunity to address a “profound gap” in the legal framework. He argued that sexual violence can never be a legitimate act of war and that all victims, including combatants attacked by members of their own group, should be protected under International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and the principle of humanity.
State of economic and social emergency struck down
In Sentence C-075/26, the Court declared in exequible Decree 1390 of 2025, which had established a State of Economic and Social Emergency across Colombia.
The Court found a failure of the “factual budget”, concluding that the government did not demonstrate that the crisis was unforeseen or extraordinary. It ruled that seven of the eight justifications presented, including health system financing (UPC), citizen security and failures in tax reform legislation, were structural, persistent or predictable issues that should be addressed through ordinary legislative and policy channels.
The ruling reaffirmed the principle of separation of powers, stating that the executive exceeded its authority by attempting to assume budgetary and tax competencies reserved for Congress.
Some magistrates issued a partial dissent, arguing that the health system crisis, particularly regarding UPC funding, had reached a level of severity that justified emergency powers to prevent serious risks to fundamental rights.
