A new law or a continuation of the road? LOCOTA and what it means for you

On April 8, 2026, the Organic Law for the Celerity and Optimization of Administrative Procedures (hereinafter the “Celerity Law”, and also referred to as LOCOTA for its initials in Spanish) entered into force. The National Assembly approved it on March 26, 2026, and Official Gazette (hereinafter “OG”) No. 7,018 Ext. published it on the same day it took effect.

The Celerity Law arrives 27 years after the first Law for the Simplification of Administrative Procedures (hereinafter the “Simplification Law”). The current version of that statute appears in OG No. 40,549 of November 26, 2014, which repealed the 2008 law of the same name (OG No. 5,891 Ext. of July 31, 2008), which in turn had repealed the original 1999 version (OG No. 36,845 of December 7, 1999).

It is no novelty for the legislator to issue a new statute on the same subject matter. What deserves analysis is the extent to which the Celerity Law actually innovates, what survives from the prior regime, and what all of this means for those who must deal with the Venezuelan public administration.

The same starting point

Both laws draw from the same source. Article 141 of the Venezuelan Constitution provides that the public administration serves the citizenry and is grounded on the principles of honesty, participation, the right to celerity, efficacy, efficiency, transparency, accountability, and responsibility. Article 51 guarantees the right to petition and to a timely response. Both statutes implement that constitutional mandate. The Organic Law of the Public Administration (OG No. 6,147 Extr. of November 17, 2014) provides an additional legislative basis for the Celerity Law.

The Celerity Law does not invent these principles; it restates and expands them. Article 3 of the new statute reproduces virtually the same list set forth in Article 141 of the Constitution but adds three rights of the administered party that deserve special attention: the right to legal certainty, the right to cure formal defects, and the presumption of good faith. These three elements represent a meaningful conceptual advance over the Simplification Law: the new statute does not merely order the public administration to act faster but expressly recognizes that the administered party must not be penalized for non-essential formal errors and that the administration must presume their good faith.

The statute also provides that no agency may sacrifice speed for non-essential formalities or for requirements whose updating is not determinative for the formation of administrative will. This principle has direct practical implications, as discussed below.

Subjects regulated: more continuity than rupture

Both laws regulate the same core subject matter: the procedures and administrative processes of the State, with the purpose of simplifying them, accelerating them, and reducing the burden on citizens and legal entities. There is therefore no thematic rupture: the Celerity Law is the continuation and deepening of the Simplification Law.

The Celerity Law is, however, broader in several relevant respects:

• Legal status: The Celerity Law is an organic law approved by the National Assembly. The Simplification Law is an ordinary law. The difference matters: the Celerity Law occupies a higher tier in the Venezuelan legal hierarchy and prevails over ordinary statutes.\n
• Expanded presidential powers: Article 6 of the Celerity Law expressly empowers the President of the Republic to suspend, reduce, modify, or eliminate procedures, authorizations, permits, and requirements, subject only to the limit of the legal reserve, provided that doing so shortens response times or facilitates the procedure for interested parties. This authorization is broader and more explicit than the one contained in the Simplification Law.\n
• Digitalization and interoperability: Articles 10, 11, and 12 of the Celerity Law address, respectively, the incorporation of technologies, inter-institutional cooperation, and the digital divide. Interoperability — the duty of public agencies to share information among themselves rather than impose that burden on the administered party — is enshrined more precisely than in the prior text.\n
• Inclusion and accessibility: Article 9 guarantees that procedures involving indigenous communities and peoples respect their customs and traditions. Article 12 requires agencies to maintain in-person service channels and direct assistance systems so that digitalization does not exclude those who lack access to digital platforms or face technological difficulties due to age or disability. These contents are new compared with the Simplification Law.

Institutional change: from INGETRAPER to the National Commission

The most visible difference between the two laws is institutional.

The Simplification Law created the National Institute for the Efficient Management of Procedures and Permits (the “INGETRAPER”), a specialized body responsible for keeping the national catalog of procedures, coordinating simplification efforts, and overseeing compliance.

The Celerity Law makes a significant turn. The Second Transitional Provision suppresses the INGETRAPER and orders its liquidation within 180 days from the law’s publication. In its place, Article 7 creates the National Commission for the Celerity and Optimization of Administrative Procedures and Processes, integrated by the President of the Republic himself (who chairs it), the Sectoral Vice Presidents, the Executive Vice President, two members of the Asamblea Nacional, two state governors, two mayors, and a representative of the Office of the People’s Defender.

This change is significant for two reasons. First, it raises the political profile of the matter: the field is no longer led by a technical institute but by a commission chaired by the head of State. Second, it brings in elected actors — governors and mayors — and a control body — the Office of the People’s Defender — which, in theory, broadens the territorial and rights perspective in the design of measures.

The National Commission will rely on a technical secretariat appointed by the President and must develop participation and public consultation mechanisms in order to identify the needs of citizens and economic sectors (Article 8).

Is there an express repeal? A relevant gray area

This is perhaps the most important question for administered parties, legal practitioners, and the agencies themselves.

The short answer: no.

The Sole Repealing Provision of the Celerity Law states: “All rules and provisions that conflict with this Law are hereby repealed.” This is a generic or implied repeal, not an express repeal of the Simplification Law. The repeal therefore operates only where there is a conflict or contradiction between rules.

The Simplification Law has not been formally repealed. All of its provisions that are not incompatible with the Celerity Law remain in force. The legal practitioner will therefore have to analyze, article by article, which rules of the Simplification Law remain effective. Two specific consequences, however, are clear:

• The suppression of the INGETRAPER is express and beyond dispute: the institute disappears by direct mandate of the Second Transitional Provision, regardless of the generic repeal.\n
• The functions assigned to the INGETRAPER under the Simplification Law will presumably be assumed by the new National Commission. The Celerity Law, however, does not expressly detail the precise scope of this transfer of functions, which creates an operational gap during the transition period.

This imperfect coexistence of statutes generates uncertainty and should be resolved by applying those provisions of the Simplification Law that do not contradict the Celerity Law and that retain practical value, including, among others:

• The prohibition on requiring certified copies of public documents, except in the cases provided for in the Simplification Law (Art. 18).\n
• The prohibition on requiring a copy of the national identity card for procedures, except in the cases provided for in the Simplification Law (Art. 19).\n
• The rule that, in the event of loss, deterioration, or destruction of personal documents, the interested party’s declaration is sufficient for re-issuance and the administration may not require additional evidence, except as provided in the Simplification Law itself (Art. 21).\n
• The prohibition on requiring evidence other than that required by law (Art. 25).\n
• The prohibition on requiring evidence for non-controverted facts, since the information declared or provided by the interested party is presumed to be true (Art. 26).\n
• The acceptance of a private instrument in lieu of a public instrument, and of a photocopy in lieu of the original or certified copy of recorded, authenticated, or recognized documents (Art. 27).\n
• The prohibition on requiring compliance with a requirement that, under the applicable rules, was supposed to have been satisfied in a prior, already-completed procedure (Art. 28).\n
• The prohibition on requiring proof of payments for prior periods as a condition to accept a new payment to the public administration (Art. 29).\n
• The prohibition on requiring previously-issued clearance certificates for procedures conducted within the same agency (Art. 30).\n
• The possibility of simple representation by means of a power of attorney to carry out procedures (Art. 32).

For more details, see the comparative chart of both laws at the end of this article.

The rights of administered parties recognized by the Organic Law of the Public Administration — which ranks above the Celerity Law — also remain in force:

• The right to have one’s matters resolved, to be assisted in the formal drafting of administrative documents, and to receive information of interest by any written, oral, telephone, electronic, or computer means (Art. 6.1).
• The right to file complaints regarding the functioning of the public administration (Art. 6.2).
• The right to easily access updated information on the organizational structure of the public administration’s agencies and entities, as well as informational guides on the administrative procedures, services, and benefits they offer (Art. 6.3).
• The right to know, at any time, the status of the proceedings in which one has an interest, and to obtain copies of documents kept in the corresponding files, provided they are not classified as reserved or confidential — except for judges and the parties involved (Art. 7.1).
• The right to know the identity of the public servants handling the proceedings (Art. 7.2).
• The right to obtain a stamped copy of the documents one submits — when filed together with the originals — and to have the originals returned, except where the originals must remain in the file for the proceeding (Art. 7.3).
• The right to obtain certified copies of files or documents (Art. 7.4).
• The right to file arguments and produce documents in administrative proceedings in which one has an interest, within the legally established terms or deadlines (Art. 7.5).
• The right to file only the documents required by the rules applicable to the relevant proceeding (Art. 7.6).
• The right to obtain information and guidance regarding the legal or technical requirements that current rules impose on the projects, actions, or applications one intends to pursue (Art. 7.7).
• The right to access the files and records of the public administration in accordance with the Constitution and other applicable rules (Art. 7.8).
• The right to be treated with respect and deference by public servants, who are obligated to facilitate the exercise of the administered party’s rights and the fulfillment of their obligations (Art. 7.9).

What changes in practice for you

For those who pursue permits, registrations, licenses, authorizations, or any other matter before the Venezuelan public administration, the Celerity Law introduces concrete tools that are worth knowing:

• Presumption of good faith and right to cure: Article 3 enshrines the right to cure formal defects. A formal error in a procedure should not be grounds for automatic rejection but rather an opportunity for correction. This principle limits the practice — unfortunately frequent — whereby agencies use minor defects to delay or deny applications.\n
• No more duplicated requirements: Article 5 orders the elimination of duplicate requirements and the implementation of institutional interoperability. In principle, if one agency already holds a document that the administered party submitted previously, another agency should not request it again. Article 11 reinforces this by creating inter-institutional coordination units responsible for information exchange.\n
• Public-servant liability for delay: Article 11 provides that non-compliance with the Celerity Law and unjustified delay in the exchange of information generate legal liability for the public servant. This opens the door to formal complaints before the corresponding bodies.\n
• 180-day adjustment period: The First Transitional Provision grants agencies 180 days to adapt to the principles and standards of the Celerity Law. During that period, administered parties may already invoke the principles of the law, even if some specific mechanisms are still being implemented.\n
• Guaranteed in-person channels: Article 12 requires agencies to maintain personalized in-person service, preferential service systems, and direct assistance. Digitalization may not be used as an excuse to eliminate human contact or to exclude individuals with technological access difficulties.

Final remarks

In normative terms, the Celerity Law is a step forward. Its organic rank gives it greater legal hierarchy, and its provisions on interoperability, the digital divide, and the right to cure address real and well-documented problems of the Venezuelan public administration.

The practical value of the law, however, will depend on its implementation. Venezuela has a relatively long history of rules that proclaim bureaucratic simplification without consistent translation into the everyday experience of those who stand in line or wait for an answer that never arrives. The suppression of the INGETRAPER and the creation of the National Commission — chaired directly by the head of State — suggest that the government seeks to give the topic greater political momentum. This is necessary, but not sufficient.

The absence of an express repeal of the Simplification Law is, ultimately, a source of uncertainty worth monitoring. Administered parties and their legal advisors will need to pay attention to the regulations and guidelines issued by the National Commission, as well as to the criteria adopted by administrative offices in their actions and by administrative-litigation courts in their rulings.

Comparative chart: LOCOTA 2026 vs. LESTA 2014

In practical terms, the Celerity Law gives administered parties new legal arguments to demand and obtain speed, simplicity, and good faith in their administrative procedures. Putting them to use requires advice.