> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://balboa.news/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# Three in Four Panama Judges Lack Permanent Status
- URL: https://balboa.news/three-in-four-panama-judges-lack-permanent-status/
- Published: 2026-09-22T13:04:14.000Z
- Updated: 2026-09-22T13:04:14.000Z
- Author: Balboa News Desk
- Tags: Politics

Three-quarters of Panama’s judges are listed as nonpermanent employees, according to an analysis of the Judicial Branch’s September payroll, raising questions about the implementation of the country’s judicial-career system.

Of the 521 judges on the payroll as of September 17, 391 were classified as “eventual,” 129 as permanent and one as an open interim appointment, *La Prensa* reported on September 22\. The figures were obtained from payroll data published by the Comptroller General.

The concentration was highest in Panama’s accusatory criminal justice system. Of its 226 guarantee, trial and sentence-enforcement judges, 198 - or 87.6% - were listed as nonpermanent.

Guarantee judges, who rule on arrests, searches and pretrial restrictions during criminal investigations, had the highest proportion. Ninety-four of 102 were classified as eventual. The same status applied to 38 of 43 sentence-enforcement judges and 66 of 81 trial judges.

All 27 magistrates serving on the criminal system’s higher appeals courts were also listed as nonpermanent. Across the country’s higher courts more broadly, 49 of 83 magistrates held that classification.

Nonpermanent status does not necessarily indicate that a judge is new or inexperienced. The payroll showed that 117 eventual judges entered the Judicial Branch before 2020, including 24 who joined before 2016.

Panama adopted its Judicial Career Law in 2015 to establish merit-based selection, evaluations and employment stability. The law provides a route to stability for qualifying judicial employees who have served for more than four years and completed two satisfactory performance evaluations, with recognition handled by the Judicial Career Administration Council.

The payroll data do not establish that any individual appointment is unlawful. However, the number of long-serving judges who remain classified as nonpermanent raises questions about how quickly the career system is being implemented and whether employment uncertainty could affect judicial independence.

The Judicial Branch had not issued a public response to the reported findings.  
  
**Sources:** La Prensa