The coverage converges on the Constitutional Court’s decision declaring the economic emergency tax decree (identified as Decree 1390 or Legislative Decree 1474 of 2025) unconstitutional and ordering DIAN to return roughly COP 25 billion collected under it, mainly from increased taxes and VAT on liquor, cigarettes, and gambling between late 2025 and January 2026. Both sides note that the ruling distinguishes between resources that must be refunded and "legally consolidated" situations that remain valid, that DIAN is bound by a strict refund timetable of about 30 days, and that taxpayers will have to file claims and provide proof such as purchase receipts, especially in the case of indirect taxes where the tax was embedded in consumer prices.

Both opposition and government-aligned outlets agree that the decision comes from the Constitutional Court in exercise of its control over emergency decrees, that DIAN has publicly stated it will comply, and that the ruling has complex implications for consumers, businesses, and regional finances. They also share that experts foresee practical obstacles to mass refunds, particularly for individual consumers facing low claim amounts and heavy evidentiary burdens, and that some tax benefits granted under the decree will not be reversed, preserving a degree of legal certainty even as the state must unwind part of its emergency tax policy.

Areas of disagreement

Nature and scale of the problem. Opposition-aligned sources frame the ruling as exposing a serious overreach and legal fragility in the government’s economic emergency strategy, emphasizing the full nominal amount of about COP 25 billion and exploring how, in principle, it could be returned. Government-aligned coverage, while acknowledging the order, tends to stress that the tax increase period was short-lived and, echoing statements like Petro’s claim that these taxes were "never collected" in full, downplays how much money actually changed hands. Opposition reports treat the figure as concrete and politically relevant, whereas government-aligned outlets often cast it as a largely accounting or technical adjustment.

Responsibility and blame. Opposition outlets highlight the government’s responsibility for issuing an unconstitutional decree and suggest administrative mismanagement, portraying the refund order as a judicial check on fiscal improvisation. Government-aligned media emphasize DIAN’s commitment to comply and portray the situation as a complex legal dispute rather than clear executive fault, sometimes amplifying claims by officials that the Court is being politically motivated or insufficiently attentive to real emergencies. In this way, opposition narratives assign blame for both legal error and its fiscal consequences, while government-friendly narratives deflect or dilute that blame by questioning the Court and stressing institutional obedience.

Practical impact on taxpayers and regions. Opposition coverage focuses on the difficulty ordinary consumers will face in reclaiming VAT on items like liquor and gambling, noting that proof requirements and tiny individual amounts will make effective refunds rare despite the headline sum. Government-aligned sources give greater prominence to local authorities and governors who call the ruling a relief for regions, stressing the safeguarding of departmental autonomy and resources rather than the obstacles faced by individual claimants. Whereas opposition outlets cast the refund mechanism as practically unworkable for many taxpayers, pro-government coverage portrays the decision as part of a broader, positive rebalancing of fiscal relations with territories.

Interpretation of the Court and institutions. Opposition media generally treat the Constitutional Court’s ruling as a legitimate exercise of constitutional control that restores legal order and clarifies the limits of emergency powers. Government-aligned outlets, while reporting the decision as binding, give significant space to officials who criticize the Court as politicized or disconnected from security and economic realities such as drone attacks and other crises. Thus, opposition sources lean on the ruling to underline institutional checks on the executive, whereas government-aligned narratives oscillate between formal respect and implicit delegitimization of the Court’s intervention.

In summary, opposition coverage tends to portray the Court’s order as a necessary correction of unconstitutional tax policy with meaningful political and fiscal consequences, while government-aligned coverage tends to minimize executive fault, emphasize compliance and regional relief, and question aspects of the Court’s stance even as it accepts the ruling’s authority.