The Government, Justice and Constitutional Affairs Committee of the National Assembly rejected, in its regular session of April 29, 2026, Preliminary Bill No. 442, submitted by legislator Ernesto Cedeño Alvarado of Circuit 8-4. The initiative sought to amend Law 59 of December 29, 1999, the current legal framework on unjustified enrichment, by introducing mandatory deadlines, interinstitutional coordination mechanisms, and sanctions for officials who obstruct investigations. The rejection was communicated to the Secretary General of the National Assembly by the committee's president, legislator Luis Eduardo Camacho Castro.

In his statement of purpose, the sponsor identified three structural weaknesses in the current legislation: the absence of defined deadlines for forwarding information between institutions, the lack of concrete consequences for administrative omissions, and limited coordination between the Comptroller General of the Republic and the Public Prosecutor's Office. In the preliminary bill's view, these gaps have created spaces of impunity in the prosecution of unjustified enrichment, which the initiative describes as one of the gravest manifestations of corruption in public administration.

The amendment to Article 9 of Law 59 would have imposed on the Comptroller General of the Republic the obligation to forward to the Office of the Attorney General, within a maximum non-extendable period of ten business days, an authenticated and complete copy of the file together with a supporting technical report, whenever sufficient indications of unjustified enrichment were determined. In turn, the Public Prosecutor's Office would have had to rule on the opening of the investigation within fifteen business days of receiving the report; unjustified delay would carry disciplinary liability. The text also clarified that forwarding the Comptroller General's report would not constitute a procedural prerequisite, allowing the Public Prosecutor's Office to act ex officio at any time, and that the report would have evidentiary value within the criminal proceeding, subject to the rules of sound criticism.

The preliminary bill also authorized the Public Prosecutor's Office to request precautionary measures against property from the initial stage of the investigation when there were risks of concealment, transfer, or dissipation of assets. The measures contemplated included sequestration and attachment of property, suspension of transfers or disposals, freezing of bank accounts, and preventive annotations in public registries. Additionally, the proposed new Article 9A sanctioned any public official who, through malice or gross negligence, omitted or delayed interinstitutional cooperation: suspension without pay for 30 to 90 days, dismissal in cases of repeat offenses, and referral of the record to the Public Prosecutor's Office if there were signs of criminal liability.

Despite the scope of the proposed reforms, Preliminary Bill 442 did not clear the first stage of the legislative process. The Government, Justice and Constitutional Affairs Committee rejected it on April 29, 2026, sixteen days after its submission, without substantive debate in the plenary of the National Assembly becoming known. Having been denied in committee, the initiative did not move on to first debate and its provisions did not enter into force. The original text of Law 59 of 1999 remains unchanged.