COThe selection process for disability evaluation boards has sparked legal and administrative controversy just days before the current government ends. Members of these boards claim there were unclear rules, accelerated deadlines, and potential flaws in the exams, while the Ministry of Labor asserts it acted based on court orders and that the recruitment respected transparency, equality, and due process. These boards, established by Law 100 of 1993, resolve disputes over whether disabilities originated from work or common causes, determine the percentage of lost work capacity, and set the date of disability onset. Their decisions dictate which entity, ARLs or pension administrators, must cover pensions or compensation, significantly impacting the social security system. A board member criticized the Ministry for initiating the competition through a resolution without prior congressional approval of a law defining the composition and requirements for these roles. The individual argued that constitutional court rulings and the State Council indicated this matter requires legislative reservation and cannot be left to executive discretion. Despite repeated attempts to create a legal frame,
Bias read (Center): The article presents both perspectives: members of the disability boards raise concerns about procedural irregularities, while the Ministry of Labor defends its actions citing judicial orders. The framing remains balanced, presenting claims from both sides without overtly favoring one over the other
