Gobierno Petro podría sufrir revés ante la movida de las empresas frente a los nuevos impuestos de la emergencia económica

The Gremial National Council (CGN) requested that the Constitutional Court provisionally suspend the decree issued by the government of Gustavo Petro under the economic emergency state, noting that the measure fails to meet constitutional requirements and poses substantial risks to institutional stability in Colombia. This call from the “guild of guilds” followed the failure of the latest tax reform in Congress amidst heightened tensions between business groups and the Petro administration.

It was emphasized that the emergency decree “does not meet the constitutional requirements necessary for declaring states of exception,” specifically referencing Article 215 of the Constitution.

You can now follow us on Facebook and on our WhatsApp Channel

According to the organization led by Andesco president Camilo Sánchez, “it is clear and evident that the constitutional requirements for declaring an economic emergency under Article 215 do not exist.” It was also stated that the current fiscal situation “is predictable and has been warned about since 2024 and 2025 when discussing the corresponding national budgets,”

Furthermore, the proportionality and necessity of the decree were questioned, highlighting that there are ordinary mechanisms available: “The national government currently has ordinary mechanisms established in the Organic Law of the National Budget to adjust budget items that allow for responsible and efficient use of resources,” argued the CGN.

In light of this, it urged the Constitutional Court “to exceptionally analyze and decide immediately regarding the provisional suspension of the effects of the decree during the judicial recess to prevent irreparable harm to the economy, which will have irreversible consequences for all Colombians directly.”

It also warned of the danger of allowing the use of the emergency state to legislate on structural matters without democratic control: “Disregarding emergency rules would have detrimental effects on the economy and institutional order,” it warned.

Other sector groups supported the CGN’s request. Jaime Cabal, president of the National Federation of Merchants (Fenalco), sent a letter to the Court warning that “legislative decrees issued during states of emergency produce immediate legal effects capable of consolidating situations whose reversal can be complex, even after a possible declaration of unconstitutionality.”

He argued that “accepting that Congressional denial justifies a state of exception would empty the separation of powers and turn this mechanism into a substitute for ordinary legislative processes.”

Meanwhile, María Claudia Lacouture, executive president of the Colombian-American Chamber of Commerce (AmCham), called for prompt judicial review. “We respectfully request the Constitutional Court to allow special sessions on non-working days when special circumstances arise and to consider convening an extraordinary session to prioritize this constitutional debate,” she stated.

From the nightlife sector, the Association of Bars and Restaurants of Colombia (Asobares) expressed opposition to any tax increases on alcohol due to the decree, arguing that such measures would “directly affect formal commerce and employment.” They warned of potential decreases in legal sales, increased smuggling, job losses—especially among youth and women—and greater informality in the nighttime economy.

The Executive, led by President Gustavo Petro, defended the need for the emergency decree following the collapse of the tax reform in Congress, which was expected to raise $16.3 trillion to cover the deficit in the approved budget of $546.9 trillion for 2026.

According to Finance Minister Germán Ávila, “the financing law was denied by Congress, forcing the government to take measures to recover the necessary income to balance the budget approved by Congress, which compels the government to take action to address this situation.”

Gustavo Petro’s reaction to industry demands was swift and critical. The president pointed out: “Why do they want the Constitutional Court to meet now to save them from paying taxes on the super-rich and not ask for the same thing to approve the pension reform?”

Additionally, he questioned the role of business sectors in financing national security: “Is security that the poor put their children and money to buy the weapons needed? The social pact is a security pact.”

Despite the pressures, the Constitutional Court decided not to issue an immediate ruling on the suspension of the decree and opted to wait until the judicial recess concludes— effective until January 13—before beginning a thorough review of its constitutionality.

During the plenary session on December 23, the Court argued that “the regulations governing administrative situations of an individual and collective nature in favor of judiciary officials must be respected, impacting the statutory legal determination regarding the judicial recess.”

The Court announced that its analysis will focus on determining whether the government truly meets the requirements outlined in Article 215 of the Constitution, namely, the existence of extraordinary and unforeseeable facts that justify the declaration of an economic emergency, as well as the possibility of ordinary alternatives to address the fiscal deficit.