Limitations regarding the use of quotes
The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
The Association for Tobacco Harm Reduction of Panama (Asociación de Reducción de Daños por Tabaquismo de Panamá - ARDTP) challenged the constitutionality of Law No. 315 of June 2022, which prohibited the use, importation, and commercialization of electronic nicotine delivery systems, electronic cigarettes, vaporizers, heated tobacco products and other similar devices, with or without nicotine, in Panama. The plaintiff argued that the law was passed in violation of legislative process rules and the Constitution. Specifically, they claimed it lacked the required two-thirds vote after the Executive raised objections and was improperly reintroduced for debate after its deadline had passed. ARDTP also raised substantive concerns, alleging that the law violated rights to information, free trade, and non-discrimination by banning “potentially less harmful alternatives” to conventional cigarettes.
The Supreme Court of Panama agreed with the plaintiff on procedural grounds, ruling that the law was unconstitutional due to the lack of a qualified majority vote following the Executive’s objection. The Court emphasized that it did not evaluate the substantive merits of the law, such as the public health arguments, since the procedural flaw alone invalidated the legislation.