The Council of State ordered the President of the Republic, Gustavo Petro, to refrain from disseminating electoral propaganda for or against parties, groups or political movements, in compliance with the restrictions established in Law 996 of 2005, known as the Electoral Guarantees Law.
The decision was adopted by the Fifth Section of the Contentious Administrative Chamber, when resolving a compliance action presented by the Foundation for the Rule of Law (FEDE Colombia), based on Article 87 of the Political Constitution and Law 393 of 1997.
In the ruling, with a report by magistrate Omar Joaquín Barreto Suárez, the high court overturned the ruling issued on March 20, 2026, by the Administrative Court of Cundinamarca, First Section, Subsection B, which had denied the claims of the plaintiff organization. In the ruling, the corporation concluded that “
the President of the Republic has failed to comply with the prohibition established in the rule and has disseminated electoral propaganda in favor of a political party, through publications and in public settings“.
The lawsuit requested that the president and the Administrative Department of the Presidency of the Republic (Dapre) refrain from “directly or indirectly disseminating electoral propaganda for or against any party, group or political movement”, considering that such conduct violated the provisions of the Electoral Guarantees Law.
Revocation of the First Instance Ruling
In the analysis of the case, the corporation pointed out that the existence of possible disciplinary investigations does not prevent recourse to the action of compliance to demand compliance with a legal norm. The ruling specified that both mechanisms pursue different purposes and can coexist.
In that sense, the ruling indicated that the failure to comply with the prohibition on disseminating electoral propaganda “may entail some type of disciplinary procedure”, although this does not eliminate the authorities’ duty to abide by the rule nor does it limit the possibility of citizens requesting its enforcement before the contentious-administrative jurisdiction.
“The existence of eventual disciplinary responsibility
does not replace or exclude the duty to comply with the rule, nor does it limit the right of citizens to go before the jurisdiction to obtain that the reluctant authority executes the unfulfilled legal mandate,” the provision stated.
Scope of the Judicial Decision
The decision was based on numeral 2 of article 38 of Law 996 of 2005, known as the Electoral Guarantees Law – credit Council of State
In the ruling part, the Council of State expressly ordered the President of the Republic to refrain, in the future, from disseminating electoral propaganda in favor of or against political parties or movements through publications, official television stations, radio or public printing.
“
The President of the Republic will be ordered to refrain in the future from disseminating electoral propaganda in favor of or against any party, group or political movement, in compliance with the express mandate contained in numeral 2 of article 38 of Law 996 of 2005”, indicated the high court, while ordering the Attorney General of the Nation to monitor compliance with the decision.
The Council of State held that the compliance action was appropriate to demand compliance with the prohibition provided for in the Electoral Guarantees Law. According to the ruling, the purpose of the judicial mechanism was to compel the authorities sued to refrain from making publications that did not correspond to their institutional functions and that could constitute electoral propaganda.
The ruling ordered the Attorney General’s Office to monitor compliance with the judicial decision – Luisa Gonzalez credit.
The ruling reiterated that the legal obligation remains in force and that
public authorities must adhere to the limits established by electoral regulations regarding the use of official media.
The decision was also signed by magistrates Pedro Pablo Vanegas Gil, Luis Alberto Álvarez Parra and Gloria María Gómez Montoya, in addition to the alternate judge Germán Bula Escobar. The document indicates that magistrates Vanegas Gil and Álvarez Parra dissented.
