Article by Woodrow de Castro
The treaty of 1903, known as the “Hay-Bunau Varilla Treaty,” between the United States of America and the newly created Republic of Panama, gave the United States jurisdiction over a strip of Panamanian territory five miles wide on each bank of the Panama Canal, including the terminal ports of Balboa, at the Pacific entrance, and Cristobal, at the Caribbean entrance. At that time, these were the only deep water ports on the Isthmus.
The United States, pursuant to the rights of jurisdiction conceded it by the treaty, established a system of courts, at first unique, and later an extension of the federal court system. The court of general jurisdiction was the United States District Court for the District of the Canal Zone. That court's admiralty jurisdiction was coextensive with the continental federal district courts.
Since the ports of Balboa and Cristobal had become points of convergence for ships from all over the world, for transit of the canal, for loading and discharging cargo, and for bunkering and drydocking, the number of maritime cases on the docket of the United States District Court for the District of the Canal Zone increased. Cases ranged from arrests for the enforcement of maritime liens, and in personam suits with foreign attachment, to cases against the Panama Canal, the agency and instrumentality of the United States in charge of the operation of the canal, for damages to vessels while in transit within the locks of the canal.
In 1962 the United States Congress extended the right to sue for damage occurring to vessels within the canal and outside the locks. This added exposure increased the number of suits against the Panama Canal Company, corporate successor to the Panama Canal. In the 1960s and 1970s from fifty to sixty admiralty cases could be found on the docket of the court, and the Canal Zone became a forum that was highly acceptable to maritime litigants.
A small number of Panamanian lawyers practiced before the Canal Zone court, and their practice included admiralty cases. In 1977, when the conclusion of a new treaty to supplant the treaty of 1903 seemed imminent, lawyers informed the then President of Panama, Demetrio Basilio Lakas, that Panama had neither jurisprudence in the maritime field, nor a body of procedure suitable for the proficient litigation of maritime cases. President Lakas appointed a commission to draft such a body of laws.
The newly appointed commission was composed of eight lawyers experienced in maritime litigation in the Canal Zone court. The commission also accepted as ad hoc collaborators eight young lawyers who had studied maritime law and who were keenly interested in the project. The commission exceeded the strict bounds of its mandate by including in the draft of the proposed legislation the creation of a separate system of maritime courts. The reasons supporting this decision were manifold. The procedure contemplated by the commission involved too radical a departure from traditional civil procedure to be imposed on a judge of a civil court. Also, the court was to serve the international maritime community; hence, its norms and concepts would be suited to, and drawn from, the bodies of law serving maritime usage and commerce, untrammeled by parochial considerations. The goal was for Panama to continue to render the same services to the international maritime community that the United States had rendered for over sixty years.
On March 30, 1982, Law Number Eight was promulgated and became effective the day before the disestablishment of the United States District Court for the District of the Canal Zone.
The beautiful and historic building in which the Canal Zone court had functioned since its establishment in 1903 became the seat of the first maritime court of the Republic of Panama. Since the building had been promised to another Panamanian agency, the law creating the maritime court had to contain a provision making the building the seat of the court. This action emphasizes the determination of the presidential commission and of the Maritime Law Association of Panama that the new court provide a continuity of service to the maritime community.
About the Author
Woodrow de Castro. LL.B., Southwestern University School of Law; Partner, De Castro & Robles, Panama City, Republic of Panama; Chairman, Presidential Commission for Drafting of Law Creating Maritime Court and Adopting Rules of Procedure for Same.
Citation
57 Tul. L. Rev. 1373 (1983)