The following analysis was prepared by Acceso a la Justicia and is shared by AlertaVenezuela because it is considered relevant to understanding the concentration of power in the Venezuelan executive branch and its relationship to the country’s new dynamics in international relations, especially with the United States, as detailed in the final paragraph added by AlertaVenezuela.
In 2026, the approval of a set of regulations in key areas such as hydrocarbons, mining, and administrative management has deepened the concentration of power in the national executive branch. This new legal framework reinforces a logic of centralization that transfers fundamental decisions—previously subject to parliamentary oversight according to the Constitution—to the discretion of the President of the Republic and his/her ministers.
In particular, the reform of the Organic Hydrocarbons Law (LOH), the Organic Mining Law (LOM) (still unpublished on the National Printing Office’s official website), and the Organic Law for the Expediting and Optimization of Administrative Procedures (LOCOTA) has a convergent effect: it transfers key fiscal, economic, and administrative decisions to the Executive branch, eliminates parliamentary oversight, and even allows for the alteration or non-application of laws through administrative acts.
Elimination of Parliamentary Oversight and Opacity in Strategic Sectors
The LOH reform is one of the most relevant examples. It allows the Executive branch to discretionally reduce the 30% royalty when it deems it necessary to guarantee the economic equilibrium of projects. In practice, this means that the tax burden on companies can be determined directly by the President of the Republic, without public debate, as it does not require legislative approval.
Furthermore, the Hydrocarbons Law (LOH) grants the Executive Branch the power to modify the integrated hydrocarbons tax rate and to reduce the income tax burden in certain cases.
These powers, which belong to the Legislative Branch, are transferred to the Executive Branch, contravening the principle of legality in tax matters established in the Constitution.
In addition to the expansion of the Executive Branch’s powers, there is a reduction in mechanisms for political oversight. The LOH eliminates the requirement for prior authorization from the National Assembly (AN) for the creation of joint ventures and the definition of their terms. This power is now exercised directly by the Executive Branch, limiting public scrutiny and reducing transparency in the management of the country’s strategic resources, even though the new law mandates that Parliament be notified afterward.
In this context, decisions with high economic and financial impact can be made without public debate or accountability, weakening the system of checks and balances. The management of sectors like oil is thus subject to agreements whose terms may not be known to the public in a timely manner.
In the mining sector, the unofficial version of the Mining Law (allegedly under Extraordinary Decree No. 7,020 of April 20) replicates this logic by allowing selective tax exemptions and granting broad powers to the National Superintendency of Mining Activity to impose measures such as temporary occupations, seizures, or immediate suspension of activities, even before a formal administrative procedure has taken place. This implies that “preventive” measures can, in practice, operate as preemptive sanctions.
The Administration as a Means to Alter the Law
The centralizing trend is also evident in the LOCOTA (Organic Law on the Control of Administrative Procedures), approved in 2026. Although its stated objective is to simplify procedures, in practice it grants the national Executive the power to modify, suspend, or eliminate requirements established in laws through administrative acts, that is, decisions of a lower rank.
Article 6 of this law consolidates this power, allowing the Executive to “edit” the content of legal norms without the need for a formal legislative reform. This alters the normative hierarchy, since in a state governed by the rule of law, a decree cannot supersede the law. However, under this framework, the national Executive acquires the capacity to disregard legal provisions it considers obstacles, which violates the principle of legality and weakens legal certainty.
In that vein, Article 6 allows for the suspension, reduction, modification, or elimination of procedures, authorizations, permits, and requirements, respecting legal reserves, and provided that this results in adapting the respective procedure to a shorter response time or facilitating the process for interested parties. Likewise, this provision stipulates that these measures cannot be applied to judicial proceedings.
This regulatory framework transforms the Executive into a “de facto legislator,” granting it the final say on which laws apply and which do not. In turn, by granting these broad powers, the National Assembly effectively relinquishes its legislative and oversight functions, thus deepening the institutional imbalance.
And how does this affect Venezuelans?
The new reforms to the powers of the Executive Branch reduce fiscal transparency by allowing it to decide on taxes, royalties, and economic conditions without parliamentary oversight or sufficient public information. This can make it difficult to know how much revenue the State will receive and how those resources are managed.
In practice, this limits accountability and can reduce Venezuelans’ ability to have clarity about public income.
What does this mean in the international context?
These changes are explained within the context of the country’s new dynamics in international relations, especially with the United States. Businesses in the oil and mining sectors require dismantling anything considered an obstacle to the entry of foreign companies into these areas, even above considerations related to the impact such projects may have on indigenous peoples and the environment. Controls that were previously circumvented through enabling laws are now being eliminated by granting clearly unconstitutional powers to the head of the executive branch. This growing trend towards the concentration of power in the hands of the Executive not only seeks to evade possible parliamentary control but also creates a dangerous precedent that can extend to other areas of public life, with negative effects on human rights and the rule of law.