Progress or setback?

May 28, 2026 Facade of the Palace of Courts, Supreme Court, Photo: Andres Perez Andres Perez CommentsTO THE EDITOR:The Full Bench of the Supreme Court is considering reforming the protection action (recurso de protección) —created in 1976 and regulated by an auto acordado— due to the volume of cases that is overwhelming the Courts of Appeals. It is a legitimate discussion, but its outcome will determine whether this action, wrongly called an appeal, which today is the fastest way to protect constitutional rights, will remain accessible to all citizens. As progress, a reform could provide more predictable timeframes, clear admissibility criteria, and more uniform decisions, avoiding contradictory rulings that today generate legal uncertainty. As a setback, access to justice could be restricted by limiting standing, imposing formal requirements that exclude those who litigate without a lawyer, closing the action against judicial rulings, or allowing contradictory interpretations of its admissibility, which would leave without protection those people who today find there their only timely response to protect their constitutional rights. Measures of restriction would be appropriate regarding: digital processing, referring complex disputes to ordinary channels, and mechanisms to resolve repetitive cases. Modifications that reduce the rights or the persons protected would be harmful, especially in health, environment, and domain, matters where the action has been decisive. Finally, a change of this magnitude should be made by law, with parliamentary debate and citizen participation, and not merely by auto acordado. Before deciding, the Court should publish figures on filings, resolutions, and timeframes, so that the reform responds to the real problem. Isabel Ximena González Ramírez Lecturer, Faculty of Law, Central UniversityMore on:Protection actionSupreme CourtAccess to Justice