During the period, concerns remained regarding conditions for the exercise of freedom of expression and freedom of the press, mainly due to difficulties faced by some media outlets in accessing official sources, allegations of unequal distribution of government advertising, legislative initiatives that could expand restrictions on journalistic content, and the persistence of defamation and libel proceedings involving substantial monetary claims. These concerns were compounded by criticism of dismissive responses from public officials to journalistic investigations, reporting mechanisms on digital platforms that affect the circulation of content, and surveillance measures targeting civil society organizations that could have a chilling effect on journalists and their sources.
The weekly press conferences of President José Raúl Mulino Quintero, announced at the beginning of his administration to address matters of national interest, began to occur less frequently, with the last one held on June 18. At the same time, some media outlets with editorial positions critical of the government have reported difficulties accessing high-ranking official sources, including warnings that government officials are not permitted to speak with their journalists.
The newspapers La Prensa and La Estrella de Panamá, among the country’s media outlets with the largest national circulation and digital traffic, have reported that the central government is blocking them from receiving government advertising. Most of these resources are allocated to media outlets whose editorial positions are more closely aligned with the government. Transparency in the allocation of government advertising remains relevant to ensuring equitable conditions and preventing public funds from being used as a mechanism to pressure or influence editorial positions.
In the legislative sphere, the bill to reform the Electoral Code under consideration by the National Assembly ahead of the 2029 elections maintains Article 539, which ambiguously penalizes so-called “mass manipulation” in digital media with prison sentences. The provision raises concerns about the possibility of subjective interpretations of concepts such as “fake news” or “disinformation,” as well as the risk of a chilling effect on journalism, public opinion, and democratic debate. Its wording raises questions regarding the guarantees of legal precision and its compatibility with Inter-American standards on freedom of expression.
Journalists’ associations have also questioned a bill on the right of reply, approved on first reading, that would turn a principle of journalistic ethics and self-regulation into a mechanism subject to judicial sanctions, with potential effects on editorial freedom. Although the initiative was returned to first reading, its sponsor has not withdrawn it, so debate could resume.
The Preliminary Bill No. 51 has also come under scrutiny. It proposes amendments to the Criminal Code concerning offenses against honor and the introduction of penalties related to false content generated through artificial intelligence. While there is legitimate concern regarding deepfakes and digital impersonation, journalists’ associations have warned of the need to prevent these provisions from being used to undermine criticism of or oversight of public officials.
The possibility remains in effect of ordering the seizure of assets belonging to media outlets and journalists as a result of civil lawsuits for defamation and libel. These proceedings follow the ordinary procedure for claims involving breaches of contractual obligations, allowing the seizure of assets to be ordered before the evidentiary stage. The length of these proceedings and the economic impact of such measures can compromise the financial sustainability of media outlets.
In this context, Corporación La Prensa (Corprensa) currently faces 12 judicial proceedings, including civil and criminal lawsuits, involving combined financial claims of approximately US$12.5 million. A court overturned on appeal a ruling favorable to Corprensa in a US$5.5 million civil lawsuit filed in 2012 by former President Ernesto Pérez Balladares. The court ordered the media outlet to pay $5,000 in moral damages. The first-instance ruling had been considered a relevant precedent because it applied the “actual malice” standard to exonerate the media outlet. The case is currently on appeal before the Supreme Court of Justice (CSJ).
A criminal proceeding against Peruvian journalist Gustavo Gorriti for alleged defamation and libel has remained suspended since 1999. The suspension is due to Gorriti’s absence from the country, and an arrest warrant has remained in effect since then should he enter Panamanian territory.
Former President Ricardo Martinelli again filed a criminal complaint against Corprensa and journalist Rolando Rodríguez for alleged defamation and libel, accompanied by a civil claim for US$1 million. Proceedings also remain pending against Corprensa and Rodríguez brought by private parties. Vicente Carretero Napolitano filed a criminal complaint for alleged defamation and libel, with a civil claim for US$1 million. Likewise, Hombres de Blanco, a major government contractor, filed a complaint for the same offenses, accompanied by a US$1 million civil claim.
A civil lawsuit for defamation and libel filed by Congressman and president of the Democratic Revolutionary Party (PRD) Benicio Robinson, seeking US$2.5 million in damages, remains pending.
Regarding the six complaints filed by former government official Odila Castillo for alleged defamation and libel, with civil claims totaling US$6 million, stemming from an investigation by La Prensa that was subsequently replicated by other media outlets, four cases have been closed for lack of evidence, one was reopened, and another remains subject to judicial consideration regarding its reopening.
Journalist Sabrina Bacal faces a criminal complaint for alleged defamation and libel filed by businessmen Roberto and Ramón Carretero Napolitano, following publications concerning their business activities and political ties to the governments of Cuba and Venezuela. At the request of the complainants, the Public Prosecutor’s Office had issued a “protective order” prohibiting Bacal from reporting or publishing, through technological or electronic means, information about the activities of the two businessmen. In March 2026, a judge revoked the measure during a judicial review hearing, finding that it affected fundamental rights, after the Public Prosecutor’s Office itself did not oppose its suspension. The criminal complaint remains pending. In July, Bacal’s defense submitted to the proceedings the ratification of an expert report on freedom of expression through an interview before the Public Prosecutor’s Office with Carolina Botero, former OAS Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression.
The civil lawsuit filed by the Single Union of Construction Workers (SUNTRACS) against La Estrella de Panamá and two of its journalists, seeking US$1 million for alleged harm to reputation and economic security, remains pending a first-instance ruling. The action arose from a publication concerning the closure of the union’s bank accounts by the state-owned Caja de Ahorros.
Following the first installment of La Prensa’s investigation titled “Dante in Ukraine,” concerning a Panamanian who joined Russian forces, the Russian Embassy in Panama responded with strongly disparaging statements. The diplomatic mission described the investigation as an “invented story,” accused the newspaper of reproducing “Western propaganda,” and described its publications as a “menu of lies.” Subsequently, Ambassador Konstantin Gavrilov publicly questioned the media outlet’s journalistic standards and described parts of the investigation as “fantasies” and “absurdities,” in addition to accusing it of using “selective nuances and half-truths.” Institutions have the right to respond to and dispute journalistic reporting; however, institutional responses must coexist with respect for editorial independence and the practice of journalism.
Meanwhile, La Estrella de Panamá posts on Instagram concerning events previously reported by the outlet through its digital and print platforms were reported by users of the social network for alleged copyright violations. These reporting mechanisms can restrict the circulation of journalistic content and leave media outlets without effective recourse against complaints that affect the visibility of their publications.
In the case of Editora Panamá América, S.A. (EPASA), a complex situation persists regarding the ownership and control of the company. Its owner, former President Ricardo Martinelli, is currently in Colombia under political asylum, while the enforcement in Panama of a final sentence imposing 128 months in prison and a US$19.2 million fine for money laundering in the New Business case remains pending. The sentence also ordered the forfeiture of EPASA shares.
Martinelli traveled to Colombia on May 10, 2025, after spending more than a year under asylum at the Nicaraguan Embassy in Panama. From Colombian territory, he has continued to participate remotely in judicial proceedings against him in Panama.
The legal and corporate structure under which these media outlets currently operate is not sufficiently clear publicly, particularly following judicial decisions concerning EPASA shares, including who exercises effective control over them and under what conditions they receive or contract government advertising. This situation is particularly relevant to the debate over the allocation of government advertising. Government advertising should be administered according to objective, transparent, and verifiable criteria so that it does not become a mechanism for rewarding, punishing, or influencing editorial positions.
In September, a recent report documented the use of National Police officers in undercover operations within labor, environmental, and campesino organizations, including the monitoring and profiling of some of their leaders. The Police acknowledged the use of undercover agents but maintained that the operations were intended to preserve public order and national security.
These developments have raised questions regarding the legal basis, proportionality, and oversight mechanisms applied to this type of surveillance. The collection of information about citizens because of their participation in social organizations or demonstrations, when not supported by legally justified investigations, may have a chilling effect on freedom of expression, freedom of association, and freedom of assembly, and may also affect journalists’ work and the protection of their sources.
