Are De la Espriella’s Planned Decrees in Colombia Legal?

President Abelardo de la Espriella began his term this Friday, Aug. 7, with a governing strategy that has raised expectations among his supporters and deep concerns among constitutional scholars and opposition groups: Issuing a broad package of presidential decrees just hours after officially taking office as President of Colombia.

The decision, presented by the president as a way to accelerate his government agenda, has been compared to the wave of executive orders Donald Trump launched during the first months of his return to the White House.

However, although the mechanism exists in both political systems, the constitutional differences between the United States and Colombia mean that the scope and limits of this strategy are considerably different.

Are De la Espriella’s planned decrees in Colombia legal?

In the weeks leading up to his inauguration, De la Espriella confirmed that his first day in office would be marked by the signing of a sweeping package of decrees aimed at implementing several of his key campaign promises without waiting for the legislative process, despite having a stable majority in Congress.

“While we put together our legislative agenda, we will sign 90 decrees on Aug. 7. They will cover security, the economy, health care, and education,” the candidate said on several occasions.

Among the measures announced are the creation of the Defense Block for Urban Security, the reorganization of various executive branch agencies, the adoption of new security policy guidelines, administrative changes to the operation of the government, and decisions related to foreign policy and the structure of the state.

De la Espriella also emphasized that his decrees will seek to effectively combat illicit crops, one of the issues on which the previous administration had its greatest disagreements with the United States.

On this matter, the new president said that one of his priorities would be to intervene in the approximately 330,000 hectares of coca that, according to him, “constitute the main source of funding for the various forms of violence in the country.”

The president has also indicated that he will use decrees to begin implementing administrative reforms, accelerate changes in the leadership of public agencies, and carry out decisions that, he argues, fall within the executive branch’s own constitutional powers.

Although not all of the texts have been made public before being signed, expectations are that this will be one of the broadest packages of decrees issued by a Colombian president on the first day of a presidential term.

What a presidential decree can do

Colombia’s Constitution grants the president broad authority to issue decrees as the country’s highest administrative authority. However, those powers are not unlimited.

Presidential decrees are used to implement existing laws, organize the public administration, regulate laws passed by Congress, and exercise powers that belong to the executive branch. There are also legislative decrees, but these may only be issued during properly declared states of emergency and are subject to strict constitutional oversight.

As a result, a president cannot amend the Constitution by decree, create taxes, eliminate rights established by law, or replace Congress’ legislative function except in the exceptional cases provided for by the Constitution.

For that reason, many of the promises made during the presidential campaign will necessarily have to become bills if they involve substantive legal reforms, just as the previous government of Gustavo Petro attempted — with little success due to its lack of congressional majorities.

Against this backdrop, the announcement that the government will rely heavily on decrees has sparked debate among constitutional scholars over the true scope of this tool. Experts agree that a decree is fully legal when it implements powers expressly granted to the president by the Constitution or by law. The problem arises when the executive branch attempts to use that mechanism to regulate matters reserved exclusively for Congress.

In such cases, any citizen may file a legal challenge before the Council of State or, depending on the nature of the decree, before the Constitutional Court, seeking its suspension or annulment.

This means that the speed with which certain decisions can be adopted does not necessarily guarantee that they will remain in force over time, since they will be subject to judicial review.

Donald Trump’s precedent

De la Espriella’s strategy is reminiscent of the one used by Donald Trump, who relied extensively on executive orders to advance his political priorities from his first day in office.

In the United States, executive orders made it possible to quickly adopt measures on immigration, border security, the operation of federal agencies, and administrative policy. However, several of those orders were temporarily blocked by federal judges or were ultimately modified after lengthy court proceedings.

The parallel exists because both presidents seek to accelerate the implementation of their agendas through presidential actions, avoiding complex legislative negotiations during the initial stage.

However, Colombia’s constitutional system provides the executive branch with less room to maneuver. Many issues that in the United States can be addressed through executive orders require laws passed by Congress in Colombia or even constitutional amendments.

The mass issuance of decrees can become an effective tool for giving a new administration an immediate governing imprint, especially in administrative matters and the internal organization of the state. It also allows the government to send clear political signals about the priorities of the new administration.

However, when decrees seek to replace legislative debate or encroach on powers reserved for Congress, the risks of legal uncertainty, litigation, and institutional deadlock increase.

For that reason, the true scope of the package of decrees that De la Espriella signs during his first days in office will depend not only on the new president’s political will, but also on whether each of those decisions remains within the limits established by the Constitution.

Otherwise, the courts will have the final say on the legality of a governing strategy that promises to define the beginning of his administration.