Draft bill 193.

Summary.

The draft bill proposes an Early Warning System (SAT) to protect the physical and emotional integrity of members of the educational community who face violence because they raised an alert, filed a complaint or report, or took another action that prompted threats. An alerting person is anyone who knows of a threat against themselves or another person. The system would apply to public and private educational institutions at every level as a preventive administrative mechanism, without changing other authorities’ powers. It defines an early alert, a risk situation, the officer assigned to manage alerts, the person identified in an alert, the risk management plan, and the system and emergency protocols.

Its governing principles would include prevention, a presumption of good faith, confidentiality, proportionality, prompt action, avoidance of further victimization, and shared responsibility. Possible risk indicators include changes in treatment, intimidating messages, unauthorized visits by third parties, and accusations on social media. Teachers, students, and other institutional staff could raise an alert for themselves or someone else. The SAT would classify risk as Level 1 preventive, Level 2 targeted, or Level 3 critical. At Levels 2 and 3, the administrative authority could order devices or mobile applications to monitor the physical distance between the parties, with confidential use of the resulting data.

The Early Warning Officer would classify an alert within 12 hours of receipt and could reclassify it as circumstances develop. An alert could be made orally or in writing; the officer would immediately issue an acknowledgment and a confidential numerical protection identifier. Within 12 hours, the institution would open a restricted risk management file, separate from personnel or disciplinary files, and assess the risk indicators. The alerting person’s official identifying information would be kept apart from the main file. The officer would draw up a plan specifying applicable measures, review the risk periodically, and close the alert through a reasoned decision once the risk had ended, subject to reopening if new indicators appeared.

Level 1 measures would include periodic monitoring, support, conciliation, and guidance. At Level 2, the institution could channel communications through official channels, temporarily separate the parties’ functions without disadvantaging the alerting person, appoint a support officer, and adjust schedules or workspaces. Level 3 would prompt immediate measures, including access restrictions, temporary protection and functional reassignment, activation of the institution’s emergency protocol, and coordination with the competent judicial authority to request protection. The measures would also cover risks arising from the identified person’s family or associated third parties. Family communications would go through the institution’s administration; at Levels 2 and 3, meetings would require a designated official’s presence or direct contact would be avoided.

Access to the risk management file would be restricted. Unauthorized disclosure of the alerting person’s identity or file information would constitute a serious administrative offense. Each institution would appoint an officer and alternate, while its administration would provide resources and adopt recommended measures. The Ministry of Education (Ministerio de Educación) would issue technical guidelines, supervise implementation, keep disaggregated annual statistics, and promote awareness of violence prevention. Adverse measures against people who raise alerts in good faith would be prohibited; the competent administrative authority would determine whether an alert was knowingly false. Institutions would have no more than six months to appoint the officer, adopt the protocol, and incorporate the SAT into their internal rules. The Executive Branch (Órgano Ejecutivo), acting through the Ministry, would issue implementing regulations within 90 days after the law took effect; the law would take effect upon promulgation.

The proposal refers to the Political Constitution of the Republic of Panama (Constitución Política de la República de Panamá) and to protocol coordination with the Ministry of Security (Ministerio de Seguridad) and the Public Prosecution Service (Ministerio Público). Its provisions could concern the National Assembly (Asamblea Nacional), public and private educational institutions, students, families, teachers, and other educational staff in the Republic of Panama (República de Panamá).