Orality Under The New Panamian Civil Procedural Code

María Isabel Pinilla and Génesis Sánchez, members of the litigation team at Arias Panama, develop this article on the concept of orality under Panama’s new Code of Civil Procedure.

In Panama, the introduction of the new Code of Civil Procedure has transformed the judicial system, particularly with respect to the principle of orality, in contrast to the traditional written system that prevails in the Judicial Code. But can this principle truly transform Panama’s civil justice system? The reality is that the shift toward orality represents not merely a change in procedural form, but a structural transformation of the Panamanian model of justice. This article examines the need for this change, the main challenges involved in implementing orality in civil proceedings, and the conditions required for its effective consolidation.

Within the legal framework, Law 402 of October 9, 2023, establishes the foundation for the new civil procedure in Panama. In this context, it is essential to consider how the principle of orality is integrated and why it is necessary within this new legal framework.

Panama’s civil procedure has traditionally been based on written proceedings, which has led to multiple dysfunctions such as excessive delays, case backlog, overburdened judicial staff, unnecessary formalities, and difficulties in the assessment of evidence. All of this has resulted in prolonged waits for judicial rulings. In many cases, judges have ruled without direct contact with the parties or evidence, which has weakened the principle of immediacy and, consequently, the quality of judicial decisions.

The incorporation of orality into the civil procedure system seeks to ensure faster, more transparent, and judge-centered justice. It also aims to reduce procedural delays, make the system more accessible to citizens, and strengthen the immediacy between the judge and the parties, which in turn contributes to better assessment of evidence and more just and well-founded decisions. Moreover, orality enhances parties participation, resulting in a more understandable process that aligns with the right to due process and effective judicial protection.

The new Code of Civil Procedure provides that the main proceedings should preferably be conducted orally through public hearings, except for specific stages that must still be handled in writing. It also recognizes the validity of conducting hearings via videoconference or other technological means, thereby allowing greater flexibility in the participation of the parties when mutually agreed upon.

Although proceedings will not be entirely oral —given that certain phases such as the preparatory stage and appeals must still be conducted in writing— this regulation represents a significant step toward the modernization and efficiency of the judicial system. A proper balance is maintained between orality, which favors immediacy and the dynamic nature of trials, and the written formality necessary to ensure accuracy and proper documentation during key stages. Furthermore, the inclusion of technology in hearings increases flexibility and access to justice, responding to current needs without compromising fundamental procedural guarantees.

Therefore, it can be stated that implementing orality in civil proceedings enables greater access to justice by streamlining processes and improving the understanding of the parties involved. This evolution has been supported by legislative reforms aimed at promoting orality as a mechanism for expediting, clarifying, and enhancing procedural efficiency.

However, implementing this principle in civil proceedings involves certain challenges, such as overcoming resistance to change and encouraging continuous training in oral litigation skills. Transitioning from a predominantly written legal culture to an oral model requires a significant shift in mindset and practices among attorneys, judges, and participants. Under this modernized system, the role of the attorney gains greater significance and demands enhanced preparation and development of key skills such as litigation techniques, public speaking, logical reasoning, and clear and structured oral presentations, along with a deep understanding of the case, the client, and the case file. Additionally, it is crucial to establish a clear and coherent regulatory framework that governs oral proceedings, defines the roles and responsibilities of the parties involved, and safeguards fundamental rights.

While the multiple benefits of orality are undeniable, judicial oversight is necessary to prevent unjustified overuse of this principle, which could result in repetitive debates and divergence from the core issues of the case. This risk can be mitigated through proper judicial direction and management by court officials.

Undoubtedly, the use of orality in the core stages of civil proceedings will have a significant impact by facilitating direct contact between the judge and the case, enabling the activation of procedural streamlining mechanisms, narrowing the scope of the conflict, and allowing for well-founded early decisions. It will also foster the judge’s necessary immediacy with the parties and promote procedural concentration.

In conclusion, the implementation of orality represents a transformation of traditionally written procedures, making it possible to realize the principles of immediacy and judge-led process management. This contributes to greater effectiveness in the administration of justice. Furthermore, orality is essential for ensuring more equitable access to justice, promoting the pursuit of truth, securing effective judicial protection, and transforming judicial processes for more efficient conflict resolution. This principle, which prioritizes spoken argument before the judge, aims to make proceedings faster, more transparent, and focused on the direct participation of the parties.

The information provided by ARIAS® is presented for informational purposes only. This information is not legal advice and is not intended to create, and does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking advice from professional advisers.