Senator Esmeralda Hernández says Colombia’s two legislative chambers approved different versions of a budget provision without reconciling them before the deadline.
A dispute over conflicting versions of a provision in Colombia’s 2027 national budget has raised questions about the bill’s legislative validity. Senator Esmeralda Hernández says the Senate and House of Representatives approved different versions of Article 65 but failed to reconcile them before the October 20 deadline.
RELATED: Colombia’s Congress Approves 2027 Budget Over Opposition Objections
The provision concerns the stabilization of funds against fluctuations in international oil prices and gasoline prices. The budget, approved at 634.9 trillion pesos, is at the center of a disagreement over whether the legislative process complied with the required procedure.
Hernández said she identified the discrepancy alongside Lina García Sierra, Bogotá’s regional ombudswoman. They presented their findings in an interview with journalist Daniel Coronell on his program El Reporte Coronell.
According to Hernández, the Senate approved the original version of Article 65, while the House adopted a different text that included a proposal by Senator Juan Fernando Caicedo of the Democratic Center party and two additional paragraphs.
¡Tumbamos el Presupuesto de Abelardo!
Tras una revisión rigurosa junto a @LinaGarciaSi, encontramos que Cámara y Senado aprobaron textos diferentes, sin la conciliación obligatoria. Por el afán de pupitrearlo terminaron haciéndolo mal, a medianoche y de espaldas al país.
¡A la… pic.twitter.com/nPpWeItzII
— Esmeralda Hernández (@EsmeHernandezSi) October 21, 2026
Text Reads: We’ve taken down Abelardo’s Budget! After a rigorous review alongside@LinaGarciaSi, we found that the House and Senate approved different texts, without the mandatory reconciliation. In their rush to ram it through, they ended up doing it wrong, at midnight and behind the country’s back. We confront mediocrity and lies with rigor and arguments!
Caicedo withdrew his proposal during a Senate plenary session, leaving it on record rather than seeking its approval. “As the sole author of the proposal, I withdraw it and leave it on record,” he said.
“In the Senate, they approve the original text, while the House approves the text with Caicedo’s proposal, signed by a House representative, resulting in a different text,” Hernández told Coronell.
The Senate’s General Secretariat confirmed on October 20 that Article 65 had been approved without proposals or amendments. In a statement, Secretary-General Diego Alejandro González González said he had instructed the chamber’s reporting office to publish the official link to all proposals approved by the plenary, noting that none concerned Article 65.
#Colombia | Congress approved a US$201 billion budget for 2027 amid opposition criticism of cuts to education, social programs, and peace institutions.
The Historic Pact coalition announced legal challenges over reduced funding for the Special Jurisdiction for Peace.#Colombia… pic.twitter.com/Dq6v6E2Ksh— teleSUR English (@telesurenglish) October 20, 2026
The House maintained during the debate that both chambers had approved identical texts. John Édgar Pérez, a Cambio Radical representative and coordinating rapporteur for the bill, argued that reconciliation was unnecessary and proposed that the House adopt the version approved by the Senate.
The House passed the budget in the early hours of October 20, with 96 votes in favor and one against.
Hernández argues that the differences required a reconciliation committee to produce a unified text and submit it to the appropriate legislative procedure. She maintains that the House vote came too late to complete that process before the legal deadline.
García warned that the failure to reconcile the texts could jeopardize the legality of the entire budget. She said she would file a constitutional challenge if the government enacted the legislation despite the alleged irregularity. Her statements reflect her legal assessment; no judicial ruling on the budget’s validity was cited.
Carlos Meisel, the Senate’s coordinating rapporteur for the bill, disputed the argument that a potential change introduced during the House proceedings would invalidate the entire process.
Meisel said the version approved during the first debate by the joint economic committees could serve as the basis for issuing the budget by decree. He added that this version accounted for 95% of the content subsequently approved by the Senate and had been developed through agreements with the national government.
El Presupuesto fue aprobado ayer en la plenaria del Senado de la República sin ningún error ni vicio.
Lo que aparentemente ocurrió después en la Cámara de Representantes (de ser cierto), no vicia todo el proceso desde el inicio.
Queda para decreto el texto que se aprobó en primer…— Carlos Meisel (@carlosmeiselv) October 21, 2026
Text Reads: The Budget was approved yesterday in the plenary session of the Senate of the Republic without any errors or flaws. What apparently happened afterward in the House of Representatives (if true) does not taint the entire process from the beginning. The text approved in the first debate in the economic committees remains for decree. So please, let’s not exaggerate the uncertainty, because in any case, there is a budget and it is the one from the first debate. This one also came from a collective construction with the government. (And among other things, it was 95% of what was voted on yesterday) At this moment, this country does not benefit from us adding more nerves, and that’s why we work so arduously and committedly on a calm construction and agreements.
The dispute centers on whether the two chambers approved different versions of Article 65 and what consequences that discrepancy could have for the 2027 budget. Hernández argues that the lack of reconciliation left the legislative process incomplete, while Meisel maintains that a potential irregularity at a later stage would not invalidate the preceding steps.
From teleSUR English via This RSS Feed.