49 careers. Article 70 of the Constitution of Panama establishes the principle that no worker may be dismissed other than for a fair cause and subject to the formalities that the law establishes. It is not possible to dismiss a worker if she or he did not commit an act regarded as cause for dismissal under the labour law. Furthermore, the worker must be afforded the opportunity to refute the accusation or to defend her or his rights, if she or he deems the dismissal to be unjustified. The Constitution centralises the control of constitutionality on the Supreme Court, and it establishes that it shall exercise the administrative conflicts jurisdiction in connection with all acts performed by the authorities and agencies of the central administration, the decentralised administration, and the local administration. In like manner it establishes several actions, such as the nullity action, a popular action that may be brought by any person who is a resident of Panama. In the case of the full jurisdiction action, which is the action actually brought by the offended party, the procedure is as follows: in the first place, the party offended must exhaust the governmental recourse. Once the governmental recourse is exhausted, the administrative conflicts jurisdiction becomes available through the full-jurisdiction remedy or action. When, in the exercise of a full-jurisdiction action, the complaint is filed, the complainant must attach a copy of the item questioned, and all the evidence she or he deems pertinent or convenient for his legal situation. Once the complaint is admitted, the Substantiating Justice has to request the authority that performed the act being contested a report on conduct relative to the case, before forwarding the matter to the Office of the Attorney of the Administration. Once the report is received, the case is referred to and held for 10 days in the Office of the Attorney of the Administration, which defends the interests of the entity affected. Once the Office of the Attorney of the Administration responds to the complaint, the proceeding is open for the admission of evidence for a term of five days, during which both, the Attorney of the Administration, and the complainant, have the right to propose such evidence as they had not submitted together with the complaint or with the response to the complaint. The law indicates that a term of 20 working days must be established thereafter for production of the evidence. There is a period for any of the parties to object to evidence submitted. Furthermore, if the Substantiating Justice does not admit any of the evidence, this decision may be appealed before the rest of the Supreme Court Section. Once this term expires, the parties present their arguments within the five following days, and later the matter is submitted to the decision of the court. Law 25 of 1990 is not a labour law; it is an administrative law that refers to disciplinary sanctions that may be adopted against public servants. Law 25 does not have a procedure for the application of the sanction; what it establishes is a cause for dismissal. Since it does not regulate the procedure, it would be necessary to look into the rest of the general administrative rules on the subject. There must be a qualification in order to be able to apply a sanction, since otherwise the administrative action would be arbitrary. At the time that the administration is attributing the commission of an illegal act subject to sanction to a public servant, the participation of the subject in the constitution of such action must be permitted, in order to question and contest the evidence submitted by the administration against her or him. The guarantee of the due process implies hearing the person being affected, and such guarantee to be heard is obtained through remedies, which the accused party may file, and under which she or he may propose evidence, submit arguments, and be heard. Article 2 of Law 25 ordered the authorities of the State to do an identification in advance, to be able to declare the appointment non subsistent. The rules of the different entities that governed this issue had to be applied to such identification, since Law 25 did not establish a procedure. Article 43 of the Panamanian Constitution regulates the matter of retroactivity of a law, and it establishes that laws shall not be retroactive, save for