Patricia Solano, president of the Sala III, declared the legislative investigation into her personal finances illegal during a hearing on November 2, 2026. The probe, launched by the Pueblo Soberano (PPSO) party via the Legislative Assembly’s Commission on Control of Public Revenue and Expenditure, centers on a ₡128 million loan granted to the magistrate by the Judicial Employees’ Solidarity Association (Asosejud) for a residential construction project in Parrita, Puntarenas.
Contested Legislative Authority
Solano argued that the commission has exceeded its constitutional and regulatory mandate by investigating a private credit agreement. The magistrate maintained that the legislative body’s oversight powers are strictly limited to the management of public funds and the national treasury. She asserted that because the loan was issued by a private entity and governed by civil law, it falls outside the scope of parliamentary inquiry.
During the hearing, Solano emphasized that the funds managed by solidarity associations—while originating from public sector severance pay—are considered private assets once transferred. She cited an April 17, 2026, opinion from the Attorney General’s Office (PGR) and various Constitutional Chamber rulings to support her claim that personal banking and credit information are protected under Article 24 of the Political Constitution.
Allegations of Privacy Violations
Beyond the legality of the inquiry, Solano denounced what she described as a systematic pattern of harassment. She stated that her privacy was breached when a drone was flown over the construction site of her home, an incident she intends to report as a violation of her domicile and personal data.
The magistrate characterized the scrutiny as a retaliatory measure for her commitment to judicial independence. "No judge or female judge of this country has been the object of so many attacks and investigations of my personal and labor life and intrusion into the sphere of my intimacy as I have had to endure in these last months," Solano told the commission. She further stated that the loan was fully disclosed in her mandatory asset declarations filed with the Comptroller General’s Office (CGR).
Disparities in Legislative Oversight
Solano contrasted the intensity of the commission’s focus on her ₡128 million loan with its lack of action regarding significantly larger credit operations. She specifically pointed to an $8.3 million loan granted by a state bank to a company linked to Boris Marchegiani, a financier for the PPSO and ambassador to the United Nations.
According to Solano, the company, Grupo Mercantil Lapis Lazuli S.A., whose president and general attorney is Marchegiani, has spent 12 years without paying the BN a credit acquired for the construction of the Hotel Gaia, in Manuel Antonio, in Quepos, yet the commission has not moved to investigate the matter. The magistrate argued that this discrepancy highlights a selective approach to oversight that she claims is politically motivated.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the current status of the loan in question?
The ₡128 million loan was issued by Asosejud for the construction of a home. Solano maintains it was processed according to standard private association requirements, including a professional appraisal of the property and a life insurance policy.
What legal actions has the magistrate announced?
Solano has announced her intent to file a formal complaint to determine who committed the intrusion related to the credit regarding the drone surveillance of her property. She also stated that she reserves the right to pursue civil and criminal liability against those she deems responsible for what she identifies as an illegal intrusion into her personal data.
How does the Legislative Assembly justify the investigation?
The PPSO faction, via a motion promoted by deputy Marta Esquivel and backed by her bench colleagues, initiated the investigation based on the premise that solidarity associations handle resources that originate from public funds. However, Solano argues that once these funds are deposited into the association, they are subject to private law and therefore exempt from the commission’s specific oversight of the national treasury.
Worth a look