Let every phone become a message of freedom
En el momento más decisivo de una campaña presidencial, un tribunal bogotano le ordenó al candidato puntero Abelardo de la Espriella retirar los símbolos patrios de todos sus materiales electorales, incluyendo la bandera nacional y la imagen de la selección de fútbol, y abandonar su lema 'Firmes por la patria' en un plazo de 24 horas. La decisión, impulsada por un ciudadano que alegó violación al principio de igualdad, llega cuando De la Espriella acaba de ganar la primera vuelta con casi el 44% de los votos. Lo que está en juego no es solo una estrategia de campaña, sino una pregunta más profunda sobre los límites entre el discurso político, el patrimonio simbólico colectivo y el poder de los jueces para moldear el lenguaje de la democracia.
- Un juez del Tribunal Superior de Bogotá le dio al candidato presidencial más votado apenas 24 horas para desmantelar el núcleo visual y verbal de su campaña.
- La restricción llega en el peor momento posible: De la Espriella acaba de obtener 10,3 millones de votos y enfrenta una segunda vuelta con su arquitectura simbólica en riesgo de derrumbe.
- Lejos de retroceder, el candidato convirtió la orden judicial en un llamado a la movilización masiva, pidiendo a sus seguidores inundar las redes con banderas, himnos y camisetas.
- Aliados en el Congreso calificaron el fallo de absurdo y autoritario, abriendo un debate sobre si los tribunales pueden legítimamente censurar el lenguaje patriótico en campaña.
- Este es ya el segundo revés judicial para De la Espriella, y los litigios sobre el uso de símbolos nacionales amenazan con seguir redefiniendo su estrategia hasta el día de la votación.
El martes 9 de junio, el juez Rafael Albeiro Chavarro, de la Segunda Sala del Tribunal Superior de Bogotá, ordenó al candidato presidencial Abelardo de la Espriella retirar en 24 horas todos los materiales de campaña que mostraran la bandera colombiana, imágenes de la selección nacional y representaciones de las fuerzas militares y policiales. La orden también le prohibía usar sus dos frases centrales: 'Firmes por la patria' y 'Defensores de la patria', nombre de su propio movimiento político.
El fallo respondió a una demanda ciudadana presentada por Dylan Lizarazo Ramos, quien argumentó que el uso de esos símbolos vulneraba los derechos constitucionales a la igualdad y la no discriminación. No era la primera vez: semanas antes, otro juez ya le había ordenado dejar de usar la camiseta de la selección en actos y publicidad mientras se revisaba otro recurso legal.
La ironía del momento era difícil de ignorar. De la Espriella, abogado conocido entre sus seguidores como 'el tigre', acababa de ganar la primera vuelta con 10,3 millones de votos —el 43,78%—, superando a Iván Cepeda del Pacto Histórico. Ahora, en el umbral de la segunda vuelta, los tribunales amenazaban con despojar su campaña de su identidad más visible.
Su respuesta fue inmediata y calculada. En lugar de acatar el fallo en silencio, lo convirtió en combustible. A través de X, convocó a sus seguidores a llenar cada teléfono, cada estado de WhatsApp y cada video con banderas, el himno nacional y camisetas colombianas. 'Hoy te necesito', escribió, enmarcando la restricción judicial como un acto de censura y el desafío colectivo como un 'grito de libertad'.
Desde el Congreso, el representante Daniel Briceño calificó el fallo de absurdo, advirtiendo que aplicarlo al pie de la letra equivaldría a encarcelar a medio país. El debate de fondo quedó abierto: ¿pueden los jueces delimitar el uso político de los símbolos nacionales sin rozar la censura del discurso político? Con la segunda vuelta en el horizonte, la respuesta aún no tiene forma definitiva.
On Tuesday, June 9th, a court in Bogotá handed down an order that would reshape how a leading presidential candidate could present himself to voters. Judge Rafael Albeiro Chavarro, presiding over the Second Chamber of the Superior Court, ruled that Abelardo de la Espriella must remove all campaign materials displaying Colombian patriotic symbols—the national flag, images of the national soccer team, and depictions of military and police institutions. The court gave him 24 hours to comply. The ruling also barred him from using two core campaign phrases: "Firmes por la patria" (Firm for the homeland), his main campaign slogan, and "Defensores de la patria" (Defenders of the homeland), the name of his political movement.
The order came in response to a legal challenge filed by Dylan Lizarazo Ramos, a citizen who argued that De la Espriella's use of these symbols violated constitutional rights to equality and non-discrimination. This was not the first time a court had constrained De la Espriella's campaign messaging. Weeks earlier, another Bogotá judge had already ordered him to stop wearing the Colombian national team jersey in campaign events and advertisements while another legal challenge was being reviewed.
De la Espriella, a lawyer whose movement is called Defensores de la Patria and who is known to supporters as "the tiger," had emerged as the frontrunner in the first round of voting held the previous Sunday. He captured 10.3 million votes—43.78 percent of the total—edging out Iván Cepeda of the Historic Pact, the party of sitting president Gustavo Petro, who received 9.7 million votes. The judicial restrictions now threatened to dismantle the symbolic architecture of his campaign at its most crucial moment.
Within hours of the ruling becoming public, De la Espriella took to social media to respond. Rather than accept the court's decision quietly, he reframed the constraint as an opportunity to mobilize his base. "Today I need you," he wrote on X. "Let every phone, every WhatsApp status, every video and every Colombian jersey become a message of freedom." He urged supporters to share the symbols, the national anthem, and his message, insisting that no court could silence the voices of millions of Colombians seeking a different nation. In a video accompanying the post, he called the moment "a cry for freedom" and asked citizens directly for their help in growing the movement across the country while he fought the legal battle.
The ruling drew sharp criticism from allies. Daniel Briceño, an elected representative to Congress, posted on X that the court's order was absurd—if enforced literally, it would require imprisoning half the country. He called it an abuse of power. The broader question hanging over the case was whether courts should be able to restrict how candidates use national symbols and patriotic language during elections, or whether such restrictions amounted to censorship of political speech. De la Espriella's strategy was clear: he would not disappear from view. Instead, he would ask his supporters to become the visible carriers of his message, turning a judicial setback into a call for grassroots action. The second round of voting loomed ahead, and the legal battles over campaign symbols showed no sign of ending.
Citações Notáveis
Today I need you. Let every phone, every WhatsApp status, every video and every Colombian jersey become a message of freedom.— Abelardo de la Espriella, on social media responding to the court order
The justice system would have to imprison half the country. It is an abuse of power.— Daniel Briceño, elected representative to Congress, criticizing the ruling
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why would a court order a candidate to stop using the Colombian flag in his campaign?
The legal challenge argued that using national symbols as campaign tools violated people's rights to equality and non-discrimination—essentially, that patriotic imagery shouldn't belong to one candidate.
But doesn't every candidate wrap themselves in the flag?
They do. That's what makes this unusual. The court is saying there's a difference between displaying patriotic symbols and weaponizing them as campaign branding.
How did De la Espriella respond to losing that tool?
He didn't retreat. He asked his supporters to become the campaign—to share the symbols themselves on their phones and social media. He turned the restriction into a call for grassroots action.
Is that clever or is it defiance?
Both. He's technically complying with the court order while asking others to do what he can't. It's a way of saying the court can't actually silence him.
What's at stake here beyond one election?
It's about whether courts can regulate how politicians use national identity. If they can ban the flag from one campaign, what's to stop them from doing it to others? That's the real question underneath.