Council of State Sets Limits on Protests and Road Blockades

The Council of State, the highest court of the contentious-administrative jurisdiction and the supreme consultative body of the Government in Colombia, has just issued a ruling that places limits on protests in the country, especially those that resort to road blockades and harm a large part of the population.

Although in Colombia the right to social protest is protected by the Constitution, these types of actions, which organizations of different kinds resort to, also end up violating the rights of other citizens, companies, and institutions to property and economic activity.

The case that prompted the Council of State’s ruling took place between July 31 and Aug. 15, 2017, when the Community Corporation of Community Action Boards Direct Area of Influence San Isidro de Chichimene (CJAID), and its president, Sandra Patricia Ruiz Riano, led social protests in which they blocked access to Ecopetrol’s Chichimene Station, in the municipality of Acacias (Meta).

They exceeded the limits of the right to protest

The blockades restricted the entry of workers and contractors to the site and hindered the transportation of machinery and supplies necessary for operations. Although part of the oil could be produced later, the Council of State concluded that this did not rule out the existence of harm.

The Administrative Litigation Chamber, Third Section, explained that postponing production implies, at least in principle, an impact on the opportunity to generate income, since the delayed exploitation of the resource can cause economic differences associated with the time value of money, market conditions or commercialization opportunities.

It also determined that the actions exceeded the limits of the right to protest, by including the blockade of industrial facilities, restricting the entry of workers, contractors and supplies, and affecting productive activity.

“It is clear that the right to protest was used in this case as a pressure mechanism that exceeded its constitutional and democratic function, insofar as it generated a direct impact on the right to property and the normal development of the economic activity of the plaintiff company,” reads part of the ruling.

The high court stated that there is evidence disproving that the protest was carried out in a completely peaceful manner; in particular, the event that occurred on Aug. 4, 2017, is relevant because, according to security logs and complaints submitted to the proceedings, a group of protesters forcibly entered the Chichimene Station by overcoming the perimeter barrier.

“This entry was also acknowledged by Mrs. Ruiz Riano herself as a reaction to the entry of personnel by helicopter, which shows a component of direct action and retaliation incompatible with the peaceful nature that must constitutionally characterize the exercise of the right to protest,” the document adds.

Valid hunger strike, but without affecting others

Regarding the hunger strike undertaken by Ruiz Riano, the Council of State says that, although considered in the abstract, it constitutes a legitimate form of peaceful protest, “in the present case it was accompanied by Mrs. Ruiz Riano chaining herself to the pedestrian entrance of the industrial facility.”

That, although it did not absolutely prevent the supply of food to the personnel who were at the industrial plant, “did entail a significant restriction on the right to freedom of movement of workers and contractors that resulted in the disruption of normal access to the facilities.”

From a subjective perspective, according to the high court, “the conduct carried out by the defendants constituted a conscious, voluntary, organized action aimed at preventing the normal functioning of economic activity. … They had knowledge of and the will to carry out actions intended to obstruct the industrial activity of Ecopetrol SA at the Chichimene plant, as occurred with the deliberate blockade of productive infrastructure.”

For the Council of State, it is evident that Ruiz Riano and the members of the CJAID corporation “were aware of the consequences of preventing access to the station and, despite this, persisted in such actions for several days, a circumstance that makes it possible to establish the existence of a qualified subjective reproach,” reads one of the sections of the ruling.

For this reason, the Council of State declared the CJAID Corporation and its former president financially liable, and ordered them jointly and severally to compensate Ecopetrol for the economic damages caused by the blockades at the Chichimene Station.

This case draws attention because it establishes the responsibilities of a natural person and a private legal entity. For both, the Council of State applies the rules of noncontractual civil liability set out in Article 2341 of the Civil Code, according to which “whoever has committed a crime or fault that has caused harm to another is obliged to provide compensation.”

Blockades, an unrestrained instrument of protest

Last year, the Colombian Federation of Road Freight Carriers (Colfecar) reported that between 2023 and 2025, the points where protesters gathered on highways exceeded 2,000, causing losses of close to 10 trillion pesos (US$3.16 billion).

The same trade association reported that between January and May 2026, 309 blockades were recorded on the country’s roads, causing losses of 1.3 trillion pesos (US$411 million) and resulting in around 5,128 hours of disruption on the roads, equivalent to 214 days.

The decision just made by the Council of State is related to an event that occurred in 2017, but it will have an impact on protests organized from now on.

The event coincides with the beginning of a new government in Colombia, that of Abelardo de la Espriella, who determined not to allow excesses or blockades during protests, and the formation of a left-wing opposition strongly inclined to the use of roads and streets to protest.

In fact, former President Gustavo Petro stated at the end of August that “the right to protest, to express oneself and to mobilize is a democratic right,” and criticized any intention to criminalize young people who take to the streets or to repress demonstrations.