Colombia: Constitutional Court upholds most of the pension reform and sets its effective date for April 2027

Through Decision C‑264 of 2026, the Plenary Chamber of the Constitutional Court reviewed whether the House of Representatives had properly cured the procedural defect previously identified in Order 841 of 2025, which had kept the entry into force of Colombia’s pension reform suspended.

The Court upheld most of Law 2381 of 2024, including Articles 1 through 35, 37 through 92, and 95, subject to the specific exceptions identified in the decision. As a result, the main structure of the reform, including the pillar-based pension system, remains in place. At the same time, nine provisions and one proposal for an additional article were returned to the House of Representatives so that the identified procedural defects may be cured.

 

Entry into Force of the Pension Reform

One of the most relevant aspects of Decision C-264 of 2026 is the clarification of the reform’s effective date.

The Constitutional Court upheld Article 94 on the understanding that Law 2381 of 2024 will enter into force on 1 April 2027. Accordingly, the General Pension System currently governed by Law 100 of 1993 will remain fully applicable until 31 March 2027.

This decision therefore preserves the existing pension framework during the period preceding the implementation of the new system, while the legislative process concerning the provisions returned by the Court continues.

 

Changes to the Transition Regime

The postponement of the reform’s effective date also modifies the reference date for determining who qualifies for the transition regime established under Law 2381 of 2024.

The transition regime will apply to women who have accumulated at least 750 weeks of contributions and men who have accumulated at least 900 weeks as of 1 April 2027. The original wording of the law had established 30 June 2025 as the relevant cut‑off date.

As a result, the period during which individuals may complete the contribution weeks required to qualify for the transition regime is extended until the new effective date of the reform.

 

Provisions Returned to the House of Representatives

Although the Court upheld the majority of the reform, several provisions were returned to the House of Representatives for further proceedings.

Among them is the fourth paragraph of Article 11, concerning the private nature of individual accounts within the Complementary Individual Savings Component, including their ownership by the member, their status as assets independent from the State and pension administrators, and their tax treatment.

Article 14 was also returned. This provision regulates central features of the benefits available under the Comprehensive Social Protection System for Old Age, Disability and Death, including the single comprehensive pension, the recognition of contribution weeks accumulated under previous regimes, BEPS and pension bonds, the actuarial equivalence system, and the anticipated old‑age benefit.

The Court additionally returned literal k) of Article 19, which allows the National Government to regulate the investment conditions and characteristics applicable to the resources held in individual pension accounts, and the transitional paragraph of Article 23, which establishes a temporary administration fee of up to 0.7% on assets managed during the transition of resources into the Average Premium Component.

Article 36 was returned in its entirety. This provision establishes a reduction in the number of contribution weeks required for women based on the number of children born alive or adopted, allowing a reduction of 50 weeks per child, up to three children, subject to a minimum of 850 weeks and on a subsidiary basis.

The second paragraph of Article 63 was also returned. It concerns the creation of generational funds by the National Government and their investment regime, designed to optimise pension benefits while reducing risk as the member approaches retirement age. The Court also ordered that an additional paragraph be discussed, providing that resources belonging to the generational fund structure may not be used by the National Government as loans to finance economic emergencies.

 

Tax, Fund Administration and Differential Approach Provisions

The fifth numeral of Article 84, related to the tax treatment of pensions, was returned as well. Under the provision, pensions, including those received from abroad by Colombian residents, are exempt from income tax except for the portion exceeding 1,000 Tax Value Units (UVT). The bulletin notes that the wording permits the conclusion that the 1,000 UVT threshold would operate on an annual rather than monthly basis, unlike under Law 100 of 1993.

The first paragraph of Article 92, which governs the principles applicable to the administration of the Contributory Pillar Savings Fund by Banco de la República, was also returned. The provision requires investments to be made exclusively in the interest of the Fund, with an investment policy aimed at achieving the best possible, stable and reasonably predictable pension benefit while promoting portfolio diversification.

Article 93 was returned in its entirety. This provision creates a differential approach under which references to years or contribution weeks in various provisions of the reform would be reduced for Indigenous peoples and Black, Afro‑Colombian, Raizal, Palenquero and rural communities, based on life expectancy calculations prepared by DANE and determinations made by the Ministry of Labour.

 

New Conflict-of-Interest Provision

The Court also ordered discussion of a proposal for a new article concerning conflicts of interest in the administration of pension savings.

The proposed provision would require administrators under the Individual Savings Regime with Solidarity to refrain from transactions that could generate conflicts of interest between the administrator, its shareholders, parent companies, subsidiaries, affiliates or related parties, and the pension fund under management.

 

What Happens Next?

The House of Representatives has a maximum period of thirty business days from notification of the judgment to complete the proceedings required to cure the procedural defects identified by the Constitutional Court.

If conciliation between the House of Representatives and the Senate becomes necessary under Article 161 of the Constitution, it will apply only to the provisions returned by the Court and must be completed during the current legislative term.

Once the process has concluded, the President of the House of Representatives must submit a report to the Constitutional Court, together with copies of the plenary session records and other relevant documents. Based on that information, the Court will subsequently rule on the constitutionality of the returned provisions.

 

Conclusions

Decision C‑264 of 2026 provides greater certainty regarding the future of Colombia’s pension reform. The Constitutional Court upheld most of Law 2381 of 2024 and maintained the pillar-based structure of the new pension system, while requiring additional legislative proceedings with respect to a limited group of provisions.

At the same time, the Court established 1 April 2027 as the effective date of the reform, which means that the pension system governed by Law 100 of 1993 will remain fully applicable until 31 March 2027. The new date also has a direct impact on the transition regime, as eligibility will now be assessed based on contribution weeks accumulated as of 1 April 2027.

The next stage will therefore focus on the House of Representatives’ process to cure the procedural defects identified by the Court and the Constitutional Court’s subsequent review of those provisions.