Supreme Court asks to adjust Abelardo's anti-terrorism statute

Colombia’s proposed anti-terrorism statute is a new law focused on strengthening the state’s response to terrorism. The government presents it as a way to fill what it considers a gap in current security legislation. It is also part of a hard-line security policy aligned with the war on terrorism promoted by the United States.

The proposal would create a National Registry of Terrorist Groups and define broadly who could be treated as a terrorist or terrorism collaborator. Those classifications could lead to criminal penalties, property measures, or restrictions. The government therefore seeks wider tools against people and organizations it links to terrorism.

The initiative still faces major legal tests. It must pass Congress and then undergo review by the Constitutional Court. The Supreme Court recognized a legitimate constitutional aim but warned that broad definitions, severe penalties, and consequences based on an administrative registry could conflict with constitutional principles.

The Supreme Court did not reject the statute outright. Its president, Carlos Roberto Solórzano, acknowledged that the proposal pursues a constitutionally legitimate purpose: strengthening the state’s response to terrorism. That recognition gives the project a possible legal foundation, but it does not approve every measure in the text.

The court asked lawmakers to examine the sanctions, rules for removing or taking property, powers assigned to the government, and penalties attached to new crimes. It also raised concerns about the National Registry of Terrorist Groups and the broad definitions of terrorists and collaborators. These issues could affect people’s liberty, property, and legal status.

The court’s main concern is that severe criminal and property consequences might depend on an administrative record. It also warned that some criminal definitions appear broad or incomplete. The proposal must therefore be revised before later constitutional review can determine whether it may take effect.

The Superior Council for Criminal Policy voted 11 in favor and 3 against the proposed anti-terrorism statute. That margin gave the initiative a formal endorsement from an important consultative body. The approval was confirmed by Interior Minister Rodrigo Lara, who strongly praised the result.

The council includes representatives from the government, high courts, the Prosecutor’s Office, Congress, and the Ombudsman’s Office. Its role is consultative, so the vote does not itself turn the proposal into law. It also does not eliminate the constitutional concerns identified by the Supreme Court.

After the vote, the project moves to the First Commission of the Senate. There, it faces a demanding legislative process, including qualified majorities and completion within a single legislative session. If Congress approves it, the Constitutional Court will conduct the final review before the statute can enter into force.

The constitutional risk arises when a government terrorism registry produces consequences normally requiring individual proof. The Supreme Court warned that appearing on the National Registry of Terrorist Groups cannot, by itself, establish criminal guilt. A listing is an administrative decision, not automatically proof that a person committed an illegal act.

For example, the state could list an organization and then restrict a person associated with it, or seek control of property connected to that person. The court says the law must show that property is tied to an illegal activity before it can be taken. It also wants sufficient evidence and judicial control before restrictions are imposed.

Without those safeguards, the statute could create excessive government power and risk unconstitutional confiscation. It could also impose severe criminal and property consequences through broad or incomplete definitions. The proposal therefore needs clearer rules separating administrative information from proof required for punishment.

The statute has not become law. After receiving approval from the Superior Council for Criminal Policy, it proceeds to the First Commission of the Senate. This begins the congressional stage, where the proposal must navigate an especially demanding process rather than receive automatic approval.

The project needs qualified majorities and must be approved within a single legislative session. The source does not specify the exact vote threshold or detail every congressional stage. It does establish that the Senate commission is the next step after the council’s endorsement, and that Congress must approve the proposal before constitutional review.

If the project survives Congress, the Constitutional Court has the final word before it can take effect. That review matters because the Supreme Court has already identified possible conflicts involving the registry, property measures, government powers, definitions, and penalties. Passage by Congress therefore would not guarantee implementation.

A specific illegal connection is required because taking property is a severe state action. The source states that the Constitution prohibits confiscation when the state has not shown that the property is linked to illegal activity. This rule separates punishment for proven conduct from punishment based only on a person’s identity or association.

For instance, if someone appears in a terrorism registry, that entry alone should not establish that their house, account, or business financed terrorism. Authorities would need to demonstrate the property’s connection to an illegal activity. The Supreme Court also highlights the importance of sufficient evidence and judicial control over restrictions.

This requirement limits arbitrary government power and preserves proportionality between conduct and consequence. The source does not explain the full legal doctrine behind the rule, but it clearly warns that automatic property measures could become unconstitutional confiscation. The proposal must therefore define the connection and proof required before property can be taken.

Legality requires the government to define crimes and punishments clearly enough that people can understand what is prohibited. Proportionality requires the penalty to match the seriousness of the conduct. The principle of harm, or lesividad, means criminal punishment should respond to a concrete injury or threat to protected interests.

Ultima ratio means criminal law should be used only as a last resort, not as the automatic response to every risk or association. Applied here, these principles would require precise definitions of terrorism and collaboration, evidence of harmful conduct, and penalties that fit the proven offense. An administrative listing should not replace those requirements.

The article says the Supreme Court considers broad or incomplete criminal definitions a weakness. It also says severe criminal and property consequences should not depend solely on an administrative registry. These principles therefore require lawmakers to narrow the statute and build in evidence, proportionality, and judicial safeguards.