National Legislation on Labour and Social Rights
Global database on occupational safety and health legislation
Employment protection legislation database
Display in: French - Spanish
A Government representative of Panama recognized that the draft law to repeal and amend various sections of the Administrative Code had been submitted for ten years to the Legislative Assembly for approval without any successful voting. However, the new national Government set up nine months ago was currently endeavouring to harmonize national legislation with the ratified ILO Conventions. Also, with the active participation of legal professionals and the Supreme Court of Justice, revision was going on of existing codification to guarantee due process of law. This would lead to greater guarantees for defence of the accused in the face of standards which dated from 1916, as was the case of the Administrative Code. She considered that the draft bill, which would bring the 79-year-old legislation into harmony with Convention No. 29, would be well accepted in the legislative body. Act No. 112 of 1974 gave the police authorities the power to make summary judgements and to impose sanctions, but now fines could be imposed instead. The situation had, therefore, been improved although not yet to the optimum. It was a part of the modernization of the judicial system in the country to abolish forced labour in accordance with Convention No. 29.
She added that the issue of employment was a great concern for Panama as it was for the ILO. The Government was aware of the need to consider work as a voluntary chosen means of earning one's living and not as a punishment or a penalty. It was for this purpose that the Government had taken action to submit the draft bill in question yet once more to the respective authority - the Ministry of Government and Justice. This had been done on 12 May this year by Note No. DM 263.95, so that it could be submitted to the Legislative Assembly for adoption. She concluded by hoping that the Government would be able to communicate to the ILO that the necessary measures had been taken to eliminate these provisions which should not be part of the national legislation.
The Employers' members recalled with regret that this was a long-standing case, although the substance was clear. They considered that the Committee should urge a rapid change and wondered if it was possible for the Government to provide a time schedule within which modifications to these legislative provisions would be expected.
The Workers' members also noted that no progress had been made for more than ten years. They pointed out that the Committee of Experts' remarks concerned not only the principle but also the practical protection from forced labour. The Government should be firmly urged to take the necessary measures within a certain time-limit and the case should be re-examined perhaps in a year to see the progress made.
The Workers' member of Panama regretted that a long time had passed without improvement and that the solution depended upon the Ministry of Justice and the Legislative Assembly but hoped that the Government would fulfil its obligation under this Convention.
The Employers' member of Panama noted that, after the dismantling of the national army, the police force in Panama was not empowered to impose forced labour on detainees. He, however, agreed to call upon the Government to take legal measures so that both law and practice could be brought into line with the Convention.
The Government representative responded that the adoption of the draft bill would depend upon Parliament and did not dare to give a specific deadline. She, however, emphasized that the Government would do its best and provide follow-up to the adoption of the draft bill.
The Committee took note of the oral information provided by the Government representative and of the discussion which took place in the Committee. It noted with regret that the draft bill to amend the Administrative Code under which police chiefs are empowered as administrative authorities to impose certain sentences, including labour on public works and detention, had not yet been adopted, although the Government had been referring to this bill for more than ten years and in spite of the information supplied at the 1992 International Labour Conference. The Committee urged the Government to bring about a rapid change in law and practice, preferably within a definite time-frame, to fulfil the relevant provisions of Convention No. 29.
The Government has supplied the following information:
As regards the comments of the Committee of Experts, the Government states that it has sent to the Ministry of Interior and Justice for its consideration, by means of a letter of 24 September 1991, a draft Bill which repeals and amends some articles of the Administrative Code as regards "forced labour" imposed under sentences rendered by administrative tribunals, with a view to making the legislation in conformity with the Convention. This request was further reiterated by means of a letter of 28 May 1992, in which it has been requested to accelerate the measures for the submission of the draft Bill to the Legislative Assembly. The Government enclosed as annexes these letters and the draft Bill.
Articles 1 (paragraph 1), 2 (paragraph 1), and 25, of the Convention. Trafficking in persons. The Committee notes that the Penal Code of 2007, as amended by Law No. 26 of 21 May 2008, contains provisions punishing sexual exploitation and trafficking in persons for the purpose of sexual exploitation. Thus, section 178 provides for penalties of imprisonment for a term of four to six years for any person who facilitates, encourages, recruits or organizes the entry into or the exit from the country of another person, or the internal movement by that person within the national territory, with a view to submitting that person to prohibited sexual activities or sexual slavery. The Committee also notes other provisions of the Penal Code punishing other crimes related to trafficking in persons, such as association of persons with a view to committing human trafficking (section 325); receiving, depositing, negotiating, transferring or exchanging money, titles, goods or other financial resources resulting from the activities related to trafficking of migrants, human trafficking or commercial sexual exploitation, with the aim of concealing the illicit origin of such resources (section 250); or obtaining, retaining or destructing passports or other identity documents of workers (section 155). While noting these provisions, the Committee observes that the national legislation does not seem to contain provisions punishing trafficking in persons for the purpose of exploitation of their labour and consequently requests the Government to provide information on this point. It also asks the Government to communicate detailed information on the measures taken in order to prevent, suppress and punish trafficking in persons both for sexual exploitation and for exploitation of their labour. Please state whether any legal proceedings have been instituted against perpetrators, indicating the penalties imposed and communicating copies of the relevant court decisions. Please also indicate the difficulties encountered by the competent public bodies in this field.
Article 2, paragraph 2, subparagraph (c). Work exacted as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law. The Committee notes that the 2007 Penal Code provides, among the alternative penalties, for the penalty of community work. Sections 65 to 67 lay down the conditions for the execution of that penalty and stipulate that the persons concerned must give their consent in writing; that the work must be carried out in public entities, in the public health or educational institutions, in associations or in the event of calamity; and that the judge responsible for the execution of penalties shall monitor the performance of such work. The Committee asks the Government to indicate, in its next report, the institutions in which convicted persons may serve this kind of penalty and the type of work performed.
The Committee also notes that section 57 of the Penal Code (included in the chapter governing the execution of principal penalties) allows the judge responsible for the execution of penalties to authorize, as an alternative measure to imprisonment, the voluntary participation of a convicted person in a study programme or work programme to be performed inside or outside of a penitentiary establishment. The Committee notes that “non-remunerated community work” is mentioned among other activities listed in this section. The Committee asks the Government to indicate whether this kind of work is subject to the same conditions as community work provided for in section 65 of the Penal Code. If it is not the case, please indicate the institutions for which this work may be carried out and give the examples of the types of work performed.
1. With reference to its previous comments requesting the Government to ensure that seafarers have the right to terminate the labour relationship by giving reasonable notice, the Committee notes with satisfaction section 48(c) of Legislative Decree No. 8 of 26 February 1998, which regulates work at sea and on waterways and lays down other provisions. Under the said section 48(c), the engagement contract concluded per voyage, for a specific or indefinite period, shall be rescinded in cases of denunciation by the crew member provided that this does not imply waiver of rights and is done in writing in front of the labour or consular authority or, failing that, before two witnesses who are members of the vessel's crew.
2. Article 2(2)(c) of the Convention. In previous comments, the Committee referred to various sections of the Administrative Code, of Act No. 27 of 1927 (which supplements the Administrative Code), and of Act No. 112 of 1974, which empower various non-judicial authorities to impose administrative sentences including compulsory labour. The Committee noted with interest Act No. 21 of 22 April 1998, which repeals, inter alia, sections 878(1) and 882 of the Administrative Code which provided for sentences of labour on public works, and section 887 of the Code which laid down that persons sentenced to imprisonment who were maintained with public monies would be compelled to labour on public works.
The Committee further notes with interest the Government's statement in its report that it is thus ensured that non-judicial authorities cannot impose penalties involving compulsory labour.
1. Article 1(1) and Articles 2(1) and (2)(c) of the Convention. The Committee refers to its previous observations and the discussion in the Conference Committee in 1995 regarding sections 873, 878, 882, 884 and 887 of the Administrative Code and Act No. 112 of 1974. Those provisions empowered police chiefs to impose administrative sentences, including labour on public works and detention, contrary to the Convention. The Committee now notes with interest that Act No. 21 of 22 April 1998 has repealed the offending provisions of sections 878, 882 and 887 of the Code with the intention of bringing it into conformity with the Convention. It would be grateful if the Government would indicate whether, in law and in practice, these repeals have the effect of ensuring that no work or service may be exacted by virtue of the administrative powers still exercised by police chiefs, or by the President, governors or mayors.
2. Article 2(1). The Committee refers to its observation under Convention No. 105, concerning the use of forced or compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline for seafarers. It recalls the requirements also of the present Convention as regards the right of workers to free choice of employment and thus the right to terminate their employment. In its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, paragraphs 67 to 73, the Committee explained in particular on paragraph 69 the position relating to seafarers, who should be allowed upon giving reasonable notice to put an end to even indefinite contracts of employment without having to show any particular reason. The Committee hopes that the revision of the Maritime Labour Bill to which the Government has referred will take full account of the present Convention.
The Committee refers to its observation.
In its previous direct request, the Committee noted that sections 827 and 828 of the Administrative Code and sections 2, 3 and 4 of Act No. 27 of 1927 (supplementing the Administrative Code) empower the President, governors and local mayors, as well as employees in national jurisdictions, to impose sentences of detention. It requested the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that non-judicial authorities cannot impose sentences involving compulsory labour.
The Government has provided no information on this point in its report. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would confirm its understanding that, if the amendments proposed in Bill No. 22 are adopted, these provisions would no longer have the effect of allowing administrative imposition of sentences involving compulsory labour.
The Committee recalls that under provisions of the Administrative Code (sections 873, 878, 882, 884 and 887) and Act No. 112 of 1974, police chiefs are empowered as administrative authorities to impose sentences, including labour on public works and detention. As has been pointed out on many occasions, this is not in accordance with Article 2, paragraph 2(c) of the Convention, under which work can be exacted only as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law, so that the imposition of compulsory labour by administrative authorities is not compatible with the Convention.
The question was discussed in the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in 1995, and that Committee noted with regret that the draft had not been adopted, though the Government had been referring to draft legislation before the Legislative Assembly for more than ten years.
In its report received in May 1997, the Government has once again indicated that legislation for this purpose is still pending. It states that the Executive Authority, in a session of the Cabinet Council (Consejo de Gabinete) on 26 May 1997, approved Bill No. 22 to repeal and amend certain provisions of the Administrative Code in order to bring it into line with Convention No. 29; and that the Bill has now been submitted to the Legislative Assembly for final approval.
The Committee once again expresses the hope that the legislation will be adopted in the near future, in order to bring this legislation into line with the Convention.
Freedom of workers in the service of the State to leave their employment
The Committee noted the provisions of the Administrative Code, Book II, which are applicable to public employees. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the concepts of "compulsory office" (destino obligatorio) and/or "compulsory acceptance" (forzosa aceptación).
The Committee also notes that sections 827 and 828 of the Administrative Code and sections 2, 3 and 4 of Act No. 27 of 1927 (supplementing the Administrative Code) empower the President, governors and local mayors, as well as employees in national jurisdictions, to impose sentences of detention. The Committee refers to the comments that it has made on this matter in its observation and requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that non-judicial authorities cannot impose sentences involving compulsory labour.
The Committee notes that the draft Bill, to which the Government has been referring for over ten years, to repeal and amend the provisions of the Administrative Code (sections 873, 878, 882, 884 and 887) and Act No. 112 of 1974, under which police chiefs are empowered as administrative authorities to impose sentences, including labour on public works and detention, has not yet been adopted.
In accordance with Article 2, paragraph 2(c), of the Convention, work can only be exacted as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law; the imposition of compulsory labour by administrative authorities is not therefore compatible with the Convention.
The Committee hopes that the Government will take the necessary measures without delay to ensure that the provisions of the Convention on this point are respected.
[The Government is asked to supply full particulars to the Conference at its 82nd Session.]
The Committee asked the Government to provide the text of the rules applying to career servicemen, concerning their freedom to leave their employment, in peace time, on their own initiative.
The Committee notes that, by virtue of Cabinet Decree No. 38 of 10 February 1990, the "Public Force of the State of Panama" has been established to replace the national army, and that it is in the process of being organised.
The Committee notes that the provisions of the Administrative Code, Book II, Title VI, Chapter V, sections 807 to 823 applying to public employees, currently apply to the employees of the above Public Force. The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the whole of Book II of the Administrative Code so that it can ascertain the meaning of "compulsory office" ("destino obligatorio") (sections 811 and 816) and/or office subject to "compulsory acceptance" ("de forzosa aceptación") (section 817).
The Committee has been referring for several years to section 873 of the Administrative Code, under which chiefs of police, as administrative authorities, can impose the penalties listed in section 878, including labour on public works and detention, which are provided for in sections 882 and 884 respectively of the Code.
With regard to detention, section 887 of the Administrative Code provides that those sentenced to detention and living on public funds shall be required to work on public works as many hours per day as the chief of police considers reasonable, subject to a maximum of eight, to compensate the treasury for the value of the rations furnished, and that in this case each day of labour on public works shall count as two days of detention. The Committee has also referred to sections 1708 to 1720 of the Administrative Code relating to police court proceedings.
With regard to section 878 of the Administrative Code, the Committee notes that, according to the Government's report, the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare has prepared a preliminary draft of a Bill to repeal section 878(1) and sections 882 and 887 of the Administrative Code and to amend sections 892 and 1715 of the same Code. The Committee also notes that its comments also refer to section 878(3).
The Committee has also referred to Act No. 112 of 1974, sections 1 to 3 of which empower the administrative authorities to impose sentences of detention for certain offences listed in section 2 of this Act.
The Committee notes from the Government's report that the above Act is still in force. The Committee asks the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that, in accordance with the Convention, compulsory labour cannot be imposed by administrative authorities or other non-judicial bodies.
Since the above matters have been the subject of its comments for many years, the Committee hopes that the draft Bill will be adopted as rapidly as possible and that the Government will provide a copy of it as soon as it has been adopted.
The Committee asks the Government to indicate whether other provisions of the Administrative Code empower non-judicial bodies to impose penalties involving compulsory labour.
The Committee takes note of the information provided by the Government, concerning the period of compulsory service that may be required of a public servant who has been granted a study leave.
The Committee asks the Government to supply the text of the rules applying to career servicemen, concerning their freedom to leave their employment, in peacetime, on their own initiative.
The Committee has for some years been referring to section 873 of the Administrative Code, under which chiefs of police, as administrative authorities, can impose the penalties listed in section 878, including labour on public works and detention, which are provided for in sections 882 and 884 respectively of the Code.
With regard to detention, section 887 of the Administrative Code provides that those sentenced to detention and living on public funds shall be required to work on public works as many hours per day as the chief of police considers reasonable, subject to a maximum of eight, to compensate the treasury for the value of the rations furnished, and that in this case each day of labour on public works shall count as two days as detention. The Committee has also referred to sections 1708 to 1720 of the Administrative Code, relating to police court proceedings.
In 1984 the Committee took note of Bill No. 25, furnished by the Government, which was intended to introduce the necessary provisions to give effect to the Convention. In 1987, it noted that this Bill had not been approved by the authorities and that the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare was therefore considering the possibility of preparing another Bill, taking into consideration the observations of the Committee of Experts.The Committee notes from the information provided by the Government in its last report, that the above Bill has not yet been drafted but that the possibility of such a draft is still under consideration.
The Committee again points out, as it does in paragraphs 94 to 96 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, that "compulsory labour imposed by administrative or other non-judicial bodies or authorities is not compatible with the Convention". Furthermore, the possibility of appeal to a higher authority is not enough to ensure the observance of the Convention on this point.
Since this matter has been the subject of comments for more than ten years, the Committee hopes that the legislation will be brought into conformity with the Convention as rapidly as possible.