8. Country Analysis: Panama

8.1 Political and Legal System

The Republic of Panama is governed by the Political Constitution of the Republic of Panama of 1972 (CPRP), which is the fundamental law that establishes it as a presidential republic with a democratic system of government with separation of powers based on three branches: executive, legislative, and judicial. Its constitution has 328 articles throughout a preamble and 15 titles. In its provisions are established the structure of the Panamanian State (articles 1-7), the conditions of Nationality and Foreigners (articles 8-16), an extensive part of individual and social rights and duties (articles 17-130), plus another section on political rights (articles 131-145). The legislative (articles 146-174), executive (articles 175-200), and judicial (articles 201-224) branches are described below.

Territorial organization is through municipal and provincial regimes (articles 225-256), Public Treasury (articles 257-281), directives that organize the National Economy (articles 282-298), and then provisions referring to Public Servants (articles 299-309), and the Public Force (articles 310-312). The process of Constitutional Reform is established in articles 313 and 314, and there is a title dedicated to the Panama Canal (articles 315-323), the most important of its national infrastructures, plus a section on final and transitional provisions.

In addition to the three branches of State, there are other entities particularly relevant for regulation and protection of rights in the digital sphere. Specifically, the Ombudsman's Office is responsible for safeguarding fundamental rights (article 129 CPRP), which allows interpretation that, when monitoring the facts, acts, or omissions of public servants, it must also monitor how they conduct themselves in digital environments and how decisions they make can affect citizens' rights in these spaces.

The Electoral Tribunal, autonomous and independent, is responsible for interpreting and applying the Electoral Law, and for deciding on controversies arising from its application. Article 143 of the Constitution grants the Tribunal the power to sanction violations and crimes against freedom and purity of suffrage, from which it can be interpreted that it has the power to sanction those violations and crimes originating in the digital sphere. The same article gives the Tribunal legislative initiative in matters within its competence, which means it has the power to introduce electoral legislation aimed at mitigating any effect that digital platforms may have on the electoral process and its normal development.

For its part, article 144 establishes the General Electoral Prosecutor's Office as an agency of instruction "independent and assisting to the Electoral Tribunal" and which has among its functions the safeguarding of political rights of Panamanian citizens, which means it has powers to prosecute those acts that occur in the digital environment and that may interfere with the electoral rights of said citizens, since the Prosecutor's Office also has the responsibility to prosecute electoral crimes and violations.

8.2 Freedom of Expression and Human Rights

The CPRP establishes a framework for the protection of human rights, although separating individual and social rights (articles 17 to 130) from political rights (articles 131-145). Article 37 guarantees the free expression of thought without prior censorship, although establishing limits on expressions that undermine "the reputation or honor of persons or against social security or public order."

Article 89 defines social media as "instruments of information, education, entertainment, and cultural and scientific dissemination," suggesting the duty to disseminate truthful information. Furthermore, article 89 itself establishes that, if social media disseminate advertising or propaganda, "these should not be contrary to health, morality, education, cultural formation of society, and national consciousness," referring to secondary law that must regulate the functioning of these media. This constitutional provision opens the door to interesting discussions about the role of social media on the Internet and their duty to contribute to healthy digital information environments that protect the goods and values reflected in this article.

For its part, article 29 declares the inviolability of private communications. Article 42 establishes the right to access and correction of personal data, and article 43 guarantees access to public information. These are complemented by article 41, which establishes rights of petition and complaint, and, more relevant to our study, article 49, which establishes consumer and user rights to quality services and truthful information about goods and services (which would affect how they are advertised on the Internet).

Furthermore, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Budapest Convention of 2013 are ratified. Additionally, article 5 of the Penal Code establishes that human rights standards from the Constitution and international agreements are an integral part of said code, thus guaranteeing rights in the criminal sphere.

The judicial system has judicial guardianship over human rights, while the National Authority for Transparency and Access to Information (ANTAI) exercises administrative guardianship in personal data matters. It is the aforementioned Ombudsman's Office that is entrusted with the protection of fundamental rights in general, while the Electoral Tribunal is the one that possesses exclusive jurisdiction for the protection of political communication rights and freedom of expression during campaigns. Beyond constitutional, judicial, and administrative protection of human rights, various international organizations point out the diverse challenges facing freedom of expression, press freedom, and other rights in practice.

According to the Global State of Democracy Network of International IDEA, Panama has high rates in representation, and, although it is in the top 25 of countries in relation to several factors, it remains in the middle range in rights, rule of law, and participation. The good news, always according to IDEA, is that since 2019, indicators on freedom of expression and reduction of economic inequalities show a positive trend.

Freedom House considers Panamanian institutions to be democratic with competitive elections and rotation of power. With a Global Freedom index of 83/100, Panama is considered a free country where freedoms of expression and association are respected, although serious problems of corruption and impunity persist that affect both the highest spheres of government and the judicial system.

For its part, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) expresses concern about the frequent lawsuits that journalists face who criticize government policies or denounce corruption scandals, particularly those related to international financial scandals. According to its evaluation in the 2025 index, which gives Panama a score of 66.75 and places it at rank 53/180, there is evidence that media self-censorship is growing in parallel with the weight of institutional advertising in online media, limiting their independence.

The 2024 country report on human rights practices, prepared by the United States Department of State, specifically points out that in Panama, important problems persist related to the protection of human rights, among which are restrictions on freedom of expression and media freedom, coinciding with RSF in that harassment of journalists is a problem. It also mentions that journalists self-censor to avoid retaliation from government, political parties, and private sector actors. The report also points out that threats to journalists are common from criminal groups when they investigate certain criminal activities. Still, according to the same report, the Panamanian government has taken credible steps to identify and punish public servants involved in human rights abuses.

The study on Challenges to Freedom of Expression, Rule of Law, and Democracy in Latin America by the International Baltasar Garzón Foundation focuses on the case of SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) in Panama, a practice of judicial harassment against critical journalists and media through complaints for slander and defamation and lawsuits for moral damages. According to the report, judicial harassment is systematic, representing the main threat to press freedom along with severe difficulties in accessing public information in the country.

This is, in a nutshell, always according to the report, because in Panama the laws provide limited protection to journalists, including the fact that defamation and slander are crimes that can lead to prison sentences, which is aggravated because article 195 of the Panamanian penal code establishes that aggravation of defamation and slander is that it is committed by a social media outlet. Although, on the other hand, there is an exemption from criminal sanctions when the alleged offended or defamed person is a public servant, this does not prevent civil liability derived from the facts from being demanded, so the risk of these lawsuits continues.

Having said all of the above, a ruling by the Supreme Court of Justice of Panama represents a step in the right direction, as it sets an important precedent for the defense of freedom of expression and the protection of the right to information. The ruling reinforces the importance of public interest in the right to information and analyzes in detail the fit in Panamanian jurisprudence of the doctrine of "real malice" established in the famous New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) case of the United States Supreme Court. Parameters are thus established that allow better protection of the work of journalists when they report on public figures, establishing that the plaintiff must demonstrate that the facts presented are actually false and, more importantly, the Supreme Court refers to the "inhibitory impact" of disproportionate lawsuits against media and journalists that exist.

On the electoral front, there is a package of reforms to the Electoral Code delivered by the Electoral Tribunal to the National Commission for Electoral Reforms (CRNE) that was established in February 2025, which includes electoral violations such as the dissemination of false news and disinformation that may be "harmful to the electoral process" or to the work of the Tribunal itself. At the end of November 2025, the work of the National Commission for Electoral Reforms was in its final stretch, which will extend until January 2026, when the Electoral Tribunal must review, organize, and prepare a final package of proposals to be discussed in the National Assembly, which will decide the rules that will govern the next elections in 2029.

8.3 Digital Environment

According to data collected in the indicators of the Fixed Internet Service of ASEP, in Panama there is a constant upward trend in Internet connectivity, evident in recent years, both the number of subscribed customers and the total estimated number of users have grown significantly in this period.

As can be seen in the following table, the penetration rate has grown from 13.9 customers per 100 inhabitants in 2020 to 17.3 in 2024. For its part, user penetration rose from 48.3 in 2020 to 60 users per 100 inhabitants in 2024.

Table 8. Fixed Internet Service Indicators in Panama

Table 1. INDICATORS OF FIXED INTERNET SERVICE IN THE REPUBLIC. YEARS 2020-24(e)

Indicator	2020	2021	2022	2023	2024(e)
Internet Customers	594,327	645,053	721,117	716,657	779,972
Residential	543,547	585,564	655,703	657,341	712,197
Commercial	50,780	59,489	65,414	59,316	67,775
Internet Customers per 100 inhabitants	13.9	14.9	16.4	16.1	17.3
Number of Customers by technology	594,327	645,053	721,117	716,657	779,972
Cable Modem	515,368	518,905	673,399	665,667	736,433
xDSL	26,110	21,807	8,152	4,157	2,120
Wifi	3,477	6,248	4,829	8,094	7,195
Wimax	14,102	13,092	9,451	4,378	2,028
Other Technologies (1)	35,270	85,001	25,286	34,361	32,196
Internet Users (2)	2,065,384	2,225,143	2,491,671	2,497,896	2,706,350
Internet Users per 100 inhabitants	48.3	51.3	56.7	56.1	60.0

(1) Other technologies: ATM, Ethernet, Frame Relay, MPLS, FFTx, and Others
(2) The number of users is based on residential customers multiplied by the number of people per household (Population Census)
(e) Estimated figures
Source: Technical, Commercial, and Statistical Information Form (FITCE) — ASEP

As for digital literacy levels in the country, several reports note that there is an enormous gap in access to devices and connectivity among children in public schools versus the private system. Before the pandemic, only 40% of households with children attending public school had Internet, and only 30% had a computer at home, compared with 90% and 80% of households with children in the private system.

Meanwhile, another report focused on university students shows that, although all are social media users and most say they contrast information, 10% of students admit not recognizing reliable sources on the Internet, and most never indicate the source when disseminating information from others on social networks, which suggests that digital literacy with critical vision still needs to advance in the country.

The 2022 PISA results for Panama indicate that only 1% of students in Panama reached the upper levels in reading, which indicates that students are not capable of distinguishing facts from opinions based on content or sources. This is especially concerning because it means that the majority of students around age 15 in Panama do not have sufficient reading capacity to detect disinformation.

The same report notes that around 20-24% of students reported being victims of bullying or harassment, a relevant fact since these behaviors are often present in digital environments as well.

8.4 Digital Platforms Available in the Country

In Panama, YouTube has approximately 2.73 million users in the country, a percentage that continues to grow, while Instagram, which also grows, is estimated to have approximately 2.70 million users in the country, that is, they are equally popular, although the latter's annual growth rate is lower. TikTok, however, has 3.18 million users aged 18 and older in Panama and continues to experience even greater growth, which confirms that it is the most popular social network. Again, Facebook or Twitter, now X, are popular, but they are not experiencing the same growth and are far behind in user numbers compared to the first three.

If we look at the proportion of users reached by social networks in Panama, TikTok has the largest proportion with 80.4%, followed by YouTube (67.2%) and Instagram (73.4%), which confirms that they are the three most popular social networks in the country. Just behind is Facebook, and much further back are Twitter and all the others.

The Panamanian digital ecosystem has been invigorated by the accelerated growth of e-commerce and massive adoption of digital payment methods. During 2024, Panama recorded a historical record of 349 million electronic transactions, which represents an increase of 21 million operations from one year to the next. Thus, the financial and technological inclusion of the country advances toward consolidation. According to data from Telered, the main company that processes transactions and economic payment methods in the country, the volume of capital processed in these channels exceeded 108,900 million Balboas, driven by the entrenchment of the Clave System, which processed up to 264 million transactions in one year, and by the strong growth of immediate transfers and the use of digital wallets.

8.5 Legislative and Regulatory Context in Panama

8.5.1 Constitutional Framework

The Panamanian constitutional framework establishes a guarantor and robust basis for the protection of fundamental rights, which serves as a pillar for the regulation of digital environments. At its core, the Political Constitution of the Republic of Panama enshrines freedom of expression by determining that every person can freely express their thought by word, in writing, or "by any other means," without being subject to prior censorship. This open formulation allows constitutional protection to extend to the Internet, digital platforms, and social networks. However, the same constitutional text establishes that this right is not absolute, since it carries subsequent legal responsibilities when, through its exercise, it undermines the reputation or honor of persons, or in the face of acts that undermine social security or public order.

Complementarily, the Panamanian constitution erects a strict barrier against arbitrary surveillance, a vital element for the safe exercise of journalism and freedom of expression in the digital age. It guarantees the inviolability of correspondence and private documents, expressly extending this protection to telephone communications and, by extensive interpretation, to telecommunications and digital data. The constitutional mandate is clear in establishing that private communications cannot be intercepted, recorded, or examined except by order of a competent judicial authority and through strict compliance with legal formalities. This guarantee protects users and the press from illegitimate intrusions by the State into their electronic communications, safeguarding professional secrecy and confidentiality of sources.

Regarding access to information and informational self-determination, the Panamanian Constitution incorporates modern and direct procedural tools, highlighting the figure of Habeas Data. Through this constitutional remedy, the right of every person to access information about themselves contained in databases or public and private records is recognized, as well as the right to demand its rectification, updating, or confidentiality if these were inaccurate or violated their rights. Simultaneously, the Constitution enshrines the right of access to public information, establishing the principle of maximum publicity that obligates the State to be transparent, a right that today is indispensably materialized through open data portals and digital government platforms.

Finally, regarding freedom of the press and democratic debate online, the Panamanian framework seeks a balance between the prohibition of censorship and the mitigation of new digital risks. Although the Constitution protects the media and prohibits their closure or expropriation as a mechanism to silence criticism, digital environments have introduced threats such as massive disinformation and the use of bots and inauthentic accounts, especially during electoral periods. As can be seen in more detail in the corresponding section, Panama has modified its electoral legislation to face the realities of current Internet and the risks to electoral integrity.

8.5.2 Legislation on Telecommunications and Media

The regulation of telecommunications and media in the Republic of Panama is historically grounded in two fundamental regulations: Law 31 of 1996, known as the Telecommunications Law, and Law 24 of 1999, known as the Broadcasting Law. These legislations were designed with the purpose of organizing the provision of services and comprehensively regulating the use of the radio spectrum, a public domain asset whose exploitation requires the granting of state concessions. Although these laws predate the mass adoption of the Internet and the emergence of digital platforms, they establish the principles of competition, state control, and protection of the public interest that permeate the country's current digital governance.

Law 24 of 1999 is particularly relevant because of its institutional design, as it designates the Regulatory Entity of Public Services—currently the National Authority of Public Services (ASEP)—as the entity endowed with legal personality and its own assets, tasked with overseeing, organizing, and granting concessions in this sector. The function of ASEP transcends mere technical administration; it has the mandate to safeguard the social welfare of citizens and ensure the promotion of competitive markets. This mission translates into oversight that seeks to avoid practices that distort fair competition or harm investment in the country's communications infrastructure.

A protective component of democratic plurality contained in Law 24 of 1999 is the imposition of explicit restrictions designed to prevent media monopolies. The regulation prohibits cross-ownership among concessionaires of open media (such as television and radio) and daily circulation newspapers, seeking to prevent the concentration of public opinion in a few hands. Similarly, the law safeguards informational sovereignty by requiring that effective control of concessionaire companies remain predominantly in the hands of Panamanian citizens, permitting exceptions only in the case of paid television or radio services. Furthermore, this law laid the regulatory foundations for the technological transition toward digital radio and television in the country.

Regarding the protection of rights to information and freedom of the press, Executive Decree 155 stands out, which regulates broadcasting in the country. In keeping with Article 37 of the Political Constitution of the Republic, Article 44 of this decree explicitly guarantees the free expression of thought without any form of prior censorship.

This historical guarantee is intertwined with the Transparency Law (Law No. 6 of January 22, 2002), which is a pillar for the exercise of journalism and public oversight. This law guarantees the principle of public access to information and establishes mechanisms for active transparency and habeas data. At the same time, it classifies information, distinguishing between freely accessible information, confidential information (medical data, private life), and restricted access information (national security, trade secrets), prohibiting the disclosure of these latter two categories but promoting citizen participation through public consultations before making administrative decisions that affect citizen interests.

Law 59 of 2008 on Universal Service and Access to ICT seeks technological democratization and the reduction of the digital divide. This law aims to promote and guarantee access to information and telecommunications technologies throughout Panamanian territory, with particular emphasis on providing coverage and quality to citizens with geographic or economic limitations. In Article 2, it elevates the right to communication and information to the level of a fundamental principle of universal service, alongside non-discrimination, transparency, and equity. Article 3 defines the right to information as the "fundamental guarantee that every person has to receive, seek, know, and disseminate information," making this right a central component of freedom of expression in the context of access to technology.

To materialize these objectives, Law 59 establishes the creation of Funds for the Development of Universal Service and Access Projects, which are financed solidarily by operating companies through a rate applied to incoming international calls. Article 10 of the law stipulates that, when defining projects (such as telemedicine or rural telephony), priority shall be given to those that facilitate access to the "Knowledge Society," recognizing that access to government information and citizen participation are irrenunciable goals. Complementarily, Article 20 mandates the modernization of existing infrastructure in areas of difficult access to enable Internet connection.

At the level of rights defense, the Ombudsman's Office of Panama plays a cross-cutting role. Created by Law No. 7 of 1997, this institution was elevated to constitutional rank through the 2004 constitutional reform, enshrining its functions and the requirements for the election of the Ombudsman in Articles 129 and 130 of the Constitution. The Ombudsman's Office has the duty to protect the human rights of all inhabitants of the country. Given its mandate to actively defend these rights against violations and supervise the actions of public administration, the institution possesses inherent legitimacy and competence to intervene in the protection of users' and citizens' rights in the increasingly complex digital sphere.

8.5.3 Specific Regulation on Platforms and/or Content Regulation

Panama has not yet enacted a law that explicitly addresses "digital platform regulation" or "content moderation." However, the country has a regulatory framework for the Internet and its services that operates analogously, although it is clear that modernization is needed to address more clearly the current challenges of digital environments, and in particular, how these environments have changed with the emergence of large digital platforms.

Law No. 51 of July 22, 2008, which "defines and regulates electronic documents and electronic signatures and the provision of technological services for document storage and certification of electronic signatures and adopts other provisions for the development of e-commerce" has provisions that go beyond commerce and establishes the fundamental legal framework for business, digital transactions, the obligations of Internet intermediaries, and therefore is of singular relevance for platform governance.

The breadth of the scope of Law No. 51 becomes evident from Article 2, where the regulated subjects are defined. The law categorizes as "intermediary service providers" not only Internet access providers (ISPs) or telecommunication networks, but also those who provide data storage services on a temporary or permanent basis (cloud services and hosting), and crucially, those who provide "search instruments, access and data collection or links to other Internet sites." This broad definition can be interpreted to involve search engines, content aggregators, and current social media platforms, serving as a legal basis for demanding accountability under the Panamanian framework, presenting elements that are useful for the regulation of digital platforms.

Article 3 of this same law stipulates the guiding principles of digital services, including freedom of provision, compatibility, equivalence, and technological neutrality. However, it imposes clear limits, establishing that the activity of service providers must respect what is provided in other laws regarding the protection of public health, national security, personal data, and consumer interests. Similarly, Title VI of the law, which regulates e-commerce through the Internet, introduces territorial criteria in Articles 77 and 78. A company is considered to be established in Panama if it centralizes its administrative management in the country or has logistical support facilities. More importantly, Article 78 determines that foreign companies that sell services or goods through the Internet to Panama must comply with the current technical and legal requirements of the country, opening the door for transnational platforms to be subject to local legislation that protects the rights of citizens.

The most determining aspect of Law 51 for platform regulation is the establishment of a "liability exemption regime," detailed in Chapter III. While Article 84 subjects service providers to general civil, criminal, and administrative liabilities, Articles 88 to 91 establish safeguards. They establish that intermediaries, network operators, and access providers are not responsible for information they transmit if they did not originate the transmission, do not modify the data, and do not select the recipients. This immunity covers automatic and transitory storage (caching), provided that the platform diligently removes the information upon learning that it has been removed at the original source.

The core of this regime rests on the concept of "actual knowledge." Data hosting service providers (hosting), links, and search tools are exempt from all liability for unlawful or harmful content stored by third-party users, as long as they do not have actual knowledge of such unlawfulness. Platforms only incur liability if, after acquiring such knowledge (for example, through formal notification or a decision by a competent authority), they fail to act with due diligence to remove the data or disable access to it. This legal model means that in Panama, platforms do not have a general obligation to proactively monitor or filter all content circulating on their networks to maintain their immunity, establishing a system of reactive collaboration similar to that operating in the United States and the European Union.

The administrative authority tasked with overseeing this ecosystem is the General Directorate of E-Commerce (DGCE), ascribed to the Ministry of Commerce and Industries. Its competencies are defined in multiple articles (including 69 to 71, 80, 81, 95 to 97, among others). The DGCE has inspection authority: it conducts technical audits, administers the registry of storage service providers, and can impose severe sanctions, including the suspension or "permanent prohibition" of services for repeat offenders (Articles 63 and 101), something that can be problematic without appropriate limits. It also has quasi-judicial capacity: Articles 95 to 97 grant it standing to initiate suspension actions against acts contrary to the law, either of its own motion or at the request of affected third parties (such as consumer associations).

The competencies of the DGCE interact directly with content moderation. According to Articles 83 and 87, any competent authority that determines that content violates public order, health, human dignity, or consumer protection does not order the intermediary directly to block it, but must channel a motivated request to the DGCE.

When this directorate estimates the request, it becomes the authority in charge of ordering local Internet providers the suspension of transmission or blocking of access to data, even from foreign service providers. To ensure compliance, Article 102 empowers the DGCE to impose contempt fines that can reach 5% of the value of the original sanction for each day of non-compliance. Conscious of the weight of these measures, the legislator included safeguards in Articles 39, 65, 83, and 103, requiring that every restrictive measure be objective, proportionate, and guarantee absolute respect for fundamental rights such as privacy and freedom of expression.

To complement state oversight, Panamanian law relies on co-regulation. Articles 92 to 94 empower the DGCE to promote the creation of voluntary codes of conduct at the national level. These codes, which become mandatory for those who subscribe to them, must be developed with the participation of consumers and users. Their relevance for platforms is paramount, as they allow the development of standardized procedures for detecting and removing unlawful content, protection against spam, and the establishment of extra-judicial dispute resolution mechanisms. Executive Decree 24 of 2019, which regulates Law 51, operationalizes this in Chapter VII, creating a system of "trust seals" for companies that adopt these codes, requiring them to integrate privacy standards, child protection, and transparent systems for addressing user complaints.

Finally, Law No. 44 of October 10, 2012 on Copyright and Neighboring Rights is also of great relevance for the digital environment. This law modernized the Panamanian framework to encompass the Internet, determining in Articles 2 and 55 that making works available to the public includes digital networks and on-demand streaming.

Software and databases are also protected (Articles 22 and 33). Title XI of the law typifies "Technological Compliance" offenses, severely penalizing the circumvention of technological self-protection measures (DRM locks) and the alteration of information on rights management (RMI). Particularly relevant for platforms is Article 158, which grants the General Directorate of Copyright the administrative authority to order the immediate suspension of any unauthorized public communication or digital transmission, seize equipment, and instruct blockages when exploitation licenses are not accredited, thus heavily impacting the removal of protected content from the network.

8.5.4 Legislation on Data Protection and Privacy

The right to privacy and the handling of personal information of Panama's citizens finds regulatory development in Law 81 of 2019 on Personal Data Protection. This law establishes the general and binding legal framework for the processing of personal data, encompassing both private sector companies and public sector entities with particular emphasis on informational self-determination.

Law 81 is based on guiding principles detailed in Article 2. Among them stand out the principle of loyalty and legality, requiring transparency from the origin. It also imposes the principle of purpose and proportionality, which dictates that those responsible can only collect data that is strictly necessary for a specific, legitimate, and explicit purpose, prohibiting any subsequent processing that is incompatible with the original purpose. Also fundamental is the principle of security and confidentiality, which legally obligates those responsible for databases to implement robust technical and organizational measures to protect information against unauthorized access, alteration, or loss, and to maintain strict professional confidentiality.

To legitimize the processing of personal data, Article 6 of the law establishes as a general and indispensable rule the obtaining of prior, informed, and unequivocal consent from the data subject. Only expressly limited exceptions are contemplated in Article 8, such as the execution of a contract in which the data subject is a party, compliance with legal obligations imposed on the responsible party, situations of imminent medical emergency, or when the data comes from sources of unrestricted public access.

This strict control regime extends to transnational data flows. Article 5 prohibits the transfer of data to third parties, both at the national and international level, without the consent of the user, unless the receiving country or acquiring entity offers standards of protection and security equivalent to those required by Panamanian legislation, or there are international treaties of cooperation and crime prosecution that justify it.

Article 15, which legally enshrines the ARCO rights: the right of Access to know what personal data is being processed; the right of Rectification regarding inaccurate or incomplete data; the right of Cancellation (deletion) of data whose processing does not conform to the law or whose purpose has expired; and the right of Opposition to processing for legitimate founded reasons. To these traditional rights is added, in an innovative manner, the right to data portability. This legal guarantee empowers the user to request and obtain a complete copy of their personal data structured in a generic and commonly used electronic format, allowing them to operate in different digital ecosystems without losing their history or profiling.

The institutional framework in charge of ensuring compliance with this law is led by the National Authority of Transparency and Access to Information (ANTAI). Through the competencies granted in Articles 7, 17, and 36, the ANTAI acts as the governing entity and national control authority, with full powers to oversee databases, initiate investigations of its own motion or based on citizen complaints, and impose the corresponding sanctioning regime. To strengthen democratic privacy governance, Article 34 institutes the Data Protection Council. This multisectoral advisory body includes representatives from government, private business associations, and professional associations, with the task of providing specialized technical advice to ANTAI and recommending the design of relevant public policies.

8.5.5 Specific Regulation for the Protection of Vulnerable Groups

The Panamanian State has developed a specific criminal and institutional architecture aimed at protecting populations most vulnerable to threats that have been amplified through the use of information and communication technologies. The Criminal Code (unified text of 2019) incorporates international human rights treaties in Article 5 and has been reformed to address cybercrime, strengthened by Law 79 of 2013, which integrates the provisions of the Budapest Convention. This latter law is vital because Article 12 establishes the responsibility (criminal, civil, or administrative) of legal persons—including platform companies—when cybercrimes are committed by managers or subordinates due to negligence or lack of oversight within the entity.

The protection of minors in the digital environment is addressed with extreme rigor in the Criminal Code. Article 184 typifies child sexual exploitation, sanctioning with severe penalties of 10 to 15 years' imprisonment anyone who manufactures, publishes, or distributes child pornography over the Internet or through any other mass media. The law provides specific aggravating circumstances that increase the deprivation of liberty penalty by an additional 5 years if the victim is under 14 years of age or if the existence of profit motives in the exploitation of unlawful material is proven.

Similarly, Panamanian legislation addresses cyberbullying and predatory digital tactics known as grooming. Article 187 is designed to punish the strategies that abusers use to gain the trust of minors for the purpose of sexual exploitation. This article sanctions with penalties of 8 to 10 years' imprisonment those who use email, social media platforms, messaging applications, or other means of communication to incite minors to participate in sexual acts or to promote such services. In the same line of protection, Article 190 penalizes the promotion or advertising of sex tourism directed through any means, including digital space, establishing sentences ranging from 10 to 12 years' imprisonment.

Regarding protection for women and combating gender-based violence, Panama took a historic legislative step with the enactment of Law 82 of October 24, 2013. This comprehensive norm adopts preventive measures against violence and modifies the Criminal Code to introduce the criminal offense of femicide. Article 3 defines violence against women in a comprehensive manner, including discriminatory practices in both the public and private spheres. What is truly pioneering for the digital ecosystem is Article 4, item 21, which defines and introduces the concept of "media violence." This is described as the publication or dissemination, through any mass media, of stereotyped messages and images that promote exploitation, that insult, dishonor, or humiliate women, or that legitimize unequal treatment and construct socio-cultural patterns that reproduce violence.

The same Law 82 recognizes the digital dimensions of abuse through the definition of "sexual violence," which explicitly includes the recording or non-consensual dissemination of intimate images through any medium. The Criminal Code sanctions the unauthorized or unwarranted dissemination of recordings, images, or private documents that were not intended for public exposure.

Although Panama does not have a law or criminal offense that punishes "hate speech" generically, the legal system punishes hostile expressions on the Internet when they cross the line of incitement to violence, systematic discrimination, or damage to honor. Article 178 criminally sanctions those who harass, pester, or sexually discriminate against a person in work or educational settings, opening the door to its application when these acts extend to corporate or school digital environments. On the other hand, traditional crimes of libel and slander (Articles 193 to 195) suffer a substantial increase in their penalties, potentially reaching effective prison sentences, when offenses to dignity, honor, or decorum, or the false attribution of a crime, are committed en masse "using a computer system" or through social media.

Finally, to safeguard the safety of the population against extreme online threats, the Criminal Code typifies cyber-terrorism. Article 293 establishes that the use of "cyber means" to commit acts of terrorism intended to cause panic or common danger to the population shall be sanctioned with very high penalties of 20 to 30 years' imprisonment. Preventively, Article 295 punishes terrorist instruction online, imposing 5 to 10 years' imprisonment on those who use Internet platforms to teach the construction of explosive devices or to actively recruit people for acts of terror, imposing an insurmountable criminal limit on freedom of expression when it pursues the commission of atrocities.

8.5.6 Digital Electoral Regulation

The electoral regulatory framework is consolidated in the Unified Text of the Electoral Code of 2022. The code incorporates the reforms introduced by Law 247 of October 2021, configuring an electoral justice framework that seeks to adapt to the digital environment. The code comprehensively regulates the structure of the Electoral Tribunal, the Office of the Electoral General Attorney, political rights, and financing.

The Panamanian Electoral Code explicitly recognizes and regulates "digital media" as official channels for political propaganda dissemination. Articles 260 and 262 include within this legal definition the Internet in general, social networks, mobile applications, search engines, and mass messaging services. By normalizing these media, the law subjects digital political advertising to the same rigor as traditional propaganda.

Article 276 establishes strict prohibitions to which all Internet election campaigns are subject, explicitly prohibiting "dirty propaganda." This is legally defined as content that offends human dignity through insults, that engages in slander, that invades privacy, that promotes systematic discrimination, or that asserts the commission of illegal acts that have not been previously decided and proven by courts of justice.

In order to prevent dark funding and manipulation of the algorithm through illicit money, Article 213 imposes the obligation on all pre-candidates, candidates, and political parties to authorize the Electoral Tribunal with direct access to the advertising modules of their accounts on social networks and platforms.

The objective is to permit audits and real-time technical monitoring of advertising spending; any advertising that evades this monitoring is dismissed for the purposes of electoral public financing reimbursement. Articles 287 to 290 require political actors to register with the Electoral Tribunal the official URLs of their web pages, institutional and paid accounts, and fully identify the administrator or agency responsible for managing their digital media. Also, all digital advertising must carry a visible transparency label or tag.

The Electoral Code also addresses threats of automated disinformation. Article 292 contains specific provisions against mass manipulation in digital media, heavily sanctioning the use of inauthentic account centers (profile farms) and the use of bots designed to alter electoral perception. The Electoral Tribunal, through its National Electoral Organization Directorate, has the authority to verify, identify those responsible, and order the immediate administrative suspension of these toxic campaigns. After exhausting the administrative route, the law requires the case to be referred to the Office of the Electoral General Attorney.

Executive Decree No. 7 of January 23, 2024 adds a chapter to the Electoral Code whose sole purpose is to regulate and combat mass manipulation of digital media aimed at undermining the integrity of the electoral process. Article 1 legally defines modern concepts such as "electoral disinformation" and "mass manipulation." Its Article 2 provides a detailed catalog of twenty prohibited conducts that constitute this manipulation, adapting the law to twenty-first century risks. The malicious use of Artificial Intelligence for the creation of deepfakes (alteration of image, audio, or video) is prohibited, the use of click farms to amplify harmful propaganda, harassment to silence political opponents or minorities, and the use of microsegmentation techniques aimed at directing false messages. The decree empowers any citizen and the Electoral Tribunal itself to report the dissemination of false news through closed messaging applications (such as WhatsApp) or manipulation of search engines, ensuring that tools for defending democracy are aligned with technological reality.

Electoral authorities in Panama have promoted the signing of the Digital Ethical Pact, a voluntary instrument that calls on parties, candidates, media, digital agencies, and influential citizens to subscribe to a public commitment to decency in cyberspace. The signatories of the pact assume the civic duty to respect legal campaign windows (electoral blackout periods), expressly renounce the use of "dirty campaigns," bots, and fake accounts to destroy reputations, and commit to playing an active role in literacy of their audiences, verifying the authenticity of audiovisual materials before sharing them (especially in light of the rise of generative AI), and promoting an environment of political debate where the confrontation of ideas prevails over systematic digital harassment.

8.6 Alignment with UNESCO Guidelines: Panama

The analysis of Panama's regulatory framework, contrasted with UNESCO's Guidelines for digital platform governance, reveals a regulatory ecosystem that has solid constitutional foundations and notable sectoral advances but still requires systemic modernization to regulate Internet intermediaries with a comprehensive human rights approach.

At its base, Panama exhibits positive alignment regarding the protection of human rights and freedom of expression; the Political Constitution prohibits prior censorship in a technology-neutral manner and erects strict barriers against arbitrary surveillance, always requiring judicial mandate to intercept private communications. At the data architecture level, Law 81 of 2019 establishes a robust privacy and data protection model and delegates its oversight to a specific authority (ANTAI), which aligns with the protection of autonomy that UNESCO promotes.

Regarding the regulation of platforms and the content ecosystem, the country does not have a contemporary law that specifically regulates social media governance. Instead, it relies on Law 51 of 2008 (on e-commerce and electronic documents), which establishes a liability exemption regime similar to the "safe harbor" model. This law stipulates that platforms are not responsible for third-party content unless they have "actual knowledge" of its unlawfulness and fail to act diligently to remove it.

Although this approach avoids proactive censorship and aligns in principle with international proportionality standards, the designation of the General Directorate of E-Commerce (DGCE) as the authority empowered to order blockades at the administrative level—potentially reaching permanent prohibitions—raises serious questions.

This institutional design represents a critical gap with respect to UNESCO's recommendation to have an independent, specialized regulator for mitigating human rights risks and separate from the sphere of purely commercial or direct governmental orbit, that is, a clear opportunity for improvement is identified.

Where Panama demonstrates notable alignment is in its response to threats to electoral integrity in the digital environment. The Electoral Tribunal has led reforms to the Electoral Code (such as Law 247 of 2021 and Executive Decree No. 7 of 2024) that directly address the systemic risks identified by UNESCO. Panamanian legislation requires transparency in digital advertising financing, strictly prohibits mass manipulation through the use of bots and account farms, and pioneerly typifies the malicious use of artificial intelligence (deepfakes) for electoral disinformation. Furthermore, the State complements punitive regulation with self-regulatory tools and civic commitment, such as the Digital Ethical Pact, fostering the shared responsibility of political actors, media, and citizens in building a healthy information ecosystem.

Still, important gaps remain that limit effective protection of public deliberation. While UNESCO insists on decriminalizing expression and privileging civil sanctions, in Panama serious problems persist of judicial harassment against journalists, frequently materialized through SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) supported by criminal libel and slander regulations that contemplate prison sentences, aggravated if committed through social networks.

Finally, although Law 59 of 2008 promotes universal access to ICT, digital empowerment remains a pending task; concerning international educational indicators reveal that the vast majority of Panamanian students lack the reading comprehension necessary to distinguish between facts and opinions, leaving the population in a state of high vulnerability to disinformation and urgently demanding the implementation of aggressive national media literacy and information literacy policies.