President-elect Abelardo de la Espriella is seeking to hold his presidential inauguration at a military garrison outside Bogotá [1].
The proposal represents a departure from traditional Colombian protocol. Moving the ceremony to a military installation would signal a shift in the symbolic nature of the transition of power and the relationship between the executive branch and the armed forces.
Under the Colombian Constitution, the president-elect must take the oath of office before Congress [1]. However, the legal framework allows for flexibility regarding the location. The Constitution permits Congress to convene outside the Capitolio if both chambers approve the move [1, 2]. If this authorization is granted, a ceremony outside the capital becomes legally viable [2].
This request has sparked a legal debate among officials and experts. The Presidency said that the law prohibits a possession in a military garrison [3]. Conversely, legal experts said the ceremony could be held outside the Capitolio provided that both chambers of Congress approve the change in venue [2].
Reports regarding the proposal surfaced on July 8, 2026 [4]. The inauguration is expected to take place later this month. The final decision now rests with the legislative branch, which must decide whether to grant the request to move the proceedings to the military site [2, 3].
De la Espriella has not yet secured the necessary votes from the two chambers of Congress to finalize the location. The move would require a formal agreement between the Senate and the House of Representatives to relocate the session from the traditional seat of government in Bogotá [1, 2].
“The Colombian Constitution requires the president‑elect to take the oath before Congress.”
The attempt to move the inauguration to a military garrison highlights a potential tension between the incoming administration and established government norms. While the Constitution provides a mechanism for Congress to meet elsewhere, the disagreement between the current Presidency and legal experts over the suitability of a military site suggests a looming conflict over the symbolic and legal boundaries of the executive transition.
