BOGOTA, Oct 28 (Reuters) – Colombia’s lower house on Wednesday rejected changes to a package of specific articles from a pension reform bill that had been returned to the legislature by the Constitutional Court, which ordered lawmakers to remedy a procedural flaw in the bill.
In August, the Constitutional Court approved most of the 2024 pension system reform, championed by former President Gustavo Petro.
The rejection means the version of the bill approved by the Senate will stand and the court will now need to decide if the procedural flaw has been corrected.
The pension reform aims to strengthen the state-run pension administrator Colpensiones, reduce subsidies for high pensions, provide benefits to women with children, and expand coverage to protect older adults living in poverty.
The bill maintains the retirement age at 62 for men and 57 for women. The law requires all Colombians earning up to 2.3 times the monthly minimum wage — approximately 4 million pesos (about $1,300) — to make contributions to Colpensiones.
Those earning above that amount can choose a private pension fund for the surplus portion of their income.
The measure also stipulates that workers who failed to accumulate enough contribution weeks to qualify for a pension will receive aid, while those in poverty who did not contribute will receive a monthly payment of around $75.
The Petro government estimated more than 2.6 million older adults will benefit from the measures.
Men with 900 weeks of contributions and women with 750 will remain in the current system and will not be required to contribute to the state fund.
Some economic and social initiatives championed by Petro were rejected or faced difficulties gaining approval in Congress, where he lacked solid support. He left office in August and was replaced by right-wing President Abelardo De La Espriella, who has pledged to maintain some of Petro’s popular social reforms.
The reform is one of Colombia’s most significant social policy reforms in years, according to analysts, who note that it would expand the state’s role in the pension system while preserving a role for private funds—an issue that has long divided lawmakers, businesses, and unions.
(Reporting by Carlos Vargas and Nelson Bocanegra; Editing by Kylie Madry)
