Supersalud requests clarification and partial annulment of the Court's ruling in the EPS Sanitas case.

The National Health Superintendency filed a request with the Constitutional Court for clarification regarding Ruling C-277 of 2025, which revoked the intervention of EPS Sanitas and returned it to its owners, Keralty, in order to clarify the effects and procedures arising from this judicial decision.

(See: EPS Sanitas: a new dispute between the government and the health sector could open )

The action was filed on July 28 by the entity, seeking clarity regarding the procedures, processes, and procedures that must be followed as a result of the aforementioned ruling.

" In order to safeguard the fundamental right to health in connection with life, the general interest of citizens, and the defense of our own functions and actions, we submit this request ," the National Health Superintendency stated in a public communication.

On the same day, the entity also filed a motion for annulment before the Constitutional Court. This action aims to guarantee and respect due process within the judicial proceedings in which the Superintendency was a defendant.

(See more: What will happen to Sanitas patients after the EPS returns to Keralty ?)

According to the entity, the filing of the motion for annulment seeks to protect the right to an adequate defense within the framework of the ongoing constitutional process.

Judgment C-277 of 2025, issued by the Constitutional Court, established new provisions that, in the opinion of the Superintendency, require clarification for proper implementation. In this context, the request for clarification becomes a mechanism to avoid erroneous or contradictory interpretations regarding how the guidelines established by the high court should be followed.

Both legal actions, the request for clarification and the motion for annulment, were filed within the legal deadlines and in accordance with the channels established by the constitutional jurisdiction. The Superintendency indicated that these measures are being adopted in compliance with its legal and constitutional functions, and in its role as the inspection, oversight, and control authority of the health system .

(Read also: Does the Court's ruling on the EPS Sanitas case open the door to revocations of other interventions? )

The processing of these appeals could have a direct impact on the implementation of the ruling and the obligations it imposes on the various actors in the system.

The Superintendency reiterated that its objective is to guarantee the correct application of judicial decisions and ensure that the procedures adopted do not violate fundamental rights or the legal framework that governs its actions .

(See: Keralty says it receives the Sanitas EPS 'devastated' after the intervention was revoked )

DIANA K. RODRÍGUEZ T. Portfolio Journalist