Minute30.com .- The beginning of 2026 has brought with it a legal battle that promises to redefine the country’s future of employment. The Council of State has officially admitted the first lawsuit against Decree 1469, the norm with which President Gustavo Petro established a historic 23% increase in the minimum wage.

Justice will have to decide if the National Government broke the law by prioritizing the “living wage” over productivity and inflation indicators.

The arguments: Why is the decree “illegal”?

As revealed by SEMANA and confirmed by the documents before the Council of State, the Government would have incurred in a “substitution of the legal parameters.”

Historically, the increase is negotiated in the Concertation Commission under clear criteria:

* Caused inflation and inflation target.

* Factor productivity.

* Contribution of salaries to national income.

* Growth of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

The lawsuit alleges that President Petro confessed in his speech that the 23% did not come from these data, but from an ILO estimate of the “living wage.” The plaintiff maintains that the Government does not have the power to change the rules of the game imposed by Congress, imposing a “disproportionate burden” that breaks the constitutional balance.

It is important to note that Inflation during 2025 was 5.1%, as revealed by DANE, that is, almost 18% below the minimum increase.

What’s next?

The Council of State must decide in the coming days whether to order the provisional suspension of the effects of the decree.

If this happens:

* The minimum wage would return to a (probably much lower) technical legal basis.

* Administrative chaos could be generated in social security payments already made in January.

If not:

For the small business ownera 23% increase in payroll is not just “a little more money.” It is a financial shock that overwhelms production costs; Because when the minimum increases, social benefits, parafiscal contributions and social security increase. The businessman is forced to raise prices or, in the worst case, to cut staff to avoid bankruptcy.

At the same time it would be a trap for the salaryman; Because although the worker sees more money in his account, the 23% increase could be a “Pyrrhic victory” since, if companies raise their prices to pay the new salaries, the cost of the basic basket would be affected in the same or greater proportion, nullifying the benefit of the increase.

Here more Economic News