Draft bill 137.

Summary.

The draft bill establishes an ethics, transparency and good governance framework for the official universities of the Republic of Panama, including their faculties, schools, regional centers, research centers and other units. It defines university autonomy, good governance, conflicts of interest, nepotism, plagiarism and transparency. Universities would retain academic, administrative and financial autonomy under the Political Constitution of the Republic of Panama (Constitución Política de la República de Panamá), while remaining subject to legal duties and oversight. The Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic (Contra10ría General de la República) would audit public funds, budgets, income, expenditure and projects financed with public or private resources. Universities would publish budgets, financial execution, procurement, purchases, governing body minutes, and audit and control reports through a transparency portal.

Each university would adopt a binding code of ethics for its authorities, faculty, administrative staff and students, including prohibitions on nepotism, conflicts of interest and misuse of resources. The text identifies corruption, favoritism, harassment, discrimination, lack of transparency, plagiarism, document falsification and abuse of authority as ethical and governance concerns. It prohibits those practices, participation in decisions affected by personal, family or economic interests, and the use of university resources for purposes unrelated to institutional objectives. Persons simultaneously holding elected office, directing political parties or having economic interests in contracts with the university could not hold senior university leadership positions.

Universities would establish secure, confidential complaint channels, investigate ethical breaches and impose sanctions under the University Code of Ethics (Código de Ética Universitario) and applicable law, referring matters to the competent authorities when warranted. Complainants would be protected against retaliation, and their identities would remain confidential unless they consent to disclosure or a judicial authority requires it. The text provides for reprimands, suspension, removal, annulment or termination of contracts and acts, exclusion from future contracting, and legal action. It also creates an online sanctions register. Complaints would be recorded and sent to the Compliance Department (Departamento de Cumplimiento), which would make a preliminary assessment within five (5) working days. A formal investigation would gather evidence, interview the parties and witnesses, review documents and prepare a report. It would last no longer than sixty (60) working days unless a reasoned extension is justified. Sanctions would be proportionate and respect the accused person's right to present evidence and arguments before a final decision.

Each university would have an autonomous Compliance Department responsible for complaints, investigations, sanction recommendations, policy oversight, training and reports to the rector's office and university council. The University Council on Ethics and Transparency (Consejo Universitario de Ética y Transparencia) would oversee good governance policies and receive those reports, with faculty, student, administrative and civil society representation. Universities would have six months from promulgation to adapt their internal rules, and the text provides for commencement upon promulgation. The proposal could affect official universities, their educational communities, civil society and parties contracting with those institutions.