252
Country reports on judicial corruption
Control of judiciary ensures impunity for Panama’s elite
Legal system: Civil law, inquisitorial and plural Judges per 100,000 people: 8.41 2 Judge’s salary at start of career: US $1,130 Supreme Court judge’s salary: US $6,0003 4 GNI per capita: US $4,630 Annual budget of judiciary: US $46 million5 Total annual budget: US $6.7 billion6 Percentage of annual budget: 0.7 Are all court decisions open to appeal up to the highest level? Yes Institution in charge of disciplinary and administrative oversight: Not independent Are all rulings publicised? Yes Code of conduct for judges? Yes 1 Justice Studies Center of the Americas (2004–5) 2 www.organojudicial.gob.pa/contenido/planilla/planilla.html 3 Ibid. 4 World Bank Development Indicators (2005) 5 www.asamblea.gob.pa/25434_2005.pdf 6 Ibid.
The two major public concerns in Panama are impunity and lack of judicial ethics, as reflected in TI’s Global Corruption Barometer 2005. In that survey the judiciary scored 4.5 on a scale of 1 to 5 (where 5 is very corrupt). Only political parties and parliament scored worse. One reason why the judiciary is so vulnerable to corruption is the lack of robust accountability mechanisms. A second is political interference in the selection of judges.
Political interference A favourable Supreme Court is an asset to senior politicians when they or their allies face allegations of corruption. Of the current Supreme Court, two judges were appointed by former president Ernesto Pérez Balladares (1994–99) and four by former president Mireya Moscoso (1999–2004), both members of the Arnulfista party. The latter were Supreme Court President Adán Arnulfo Arjona, two members of her cabinet, Winston Spadafora
and Aníbal Salas, and a close friend and congressman, Alberto Cigarruista. Current President Martín Torrijos selected a further three: Esmeralda Arosemena de Troitiño, a former judge of the high court for children and adolescents; Harley Mitchell, a former congressional adviser; and Víctor Benavides, who worked for many years in the prosecutor’s office. In a recent case the Court voted by five to four to release US $28.4 million confiscated from businessman and Arnulfista party member, Augusto Onassis García, and José Pérez Salamero, former president of the national bank. The same judges suspended the seizure of assets belonging to Héctor Ortega, then under investigation for corruption relating to the state contractor, Ports Engineering and Consults Corp.1 Both cases relied on the argument that the plaintiffs had not been notified that the case was being brought against them and due process guarantees had therefore
1 The former comptroller, Alvin Weeden, had ordered the assets to be seized in connection with a criminal investigation of alleged ‘misuse of national treasures’ relating to the concession granted to Ports Engineering & Consultants Corporation (PECC) by the national port authority during the administration of Pérez Balladares.