Board Resolution No. 107/2026

BOARD BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 107/2026 SUBJECT: BOARD - APPEAL FOR REVOCATION AGAINST BOARD RESOLUTIONS NO. 62/2026 AND NO. 63/2026 THAT MODIFY THE LEGAL RESERVE REGULATION FOR FINANCIAL INTERMEDIATION ENTITIES.

SEEING: The Political Constitution of the State of February 7, 2009. Law No. 1670 of October 31, 1995, of the Central Bank of Bolivia (BCB) and its modifications. Law No. 2341 of April 23, 2002, on Administrative Procedure. Law No. 393 of August 21, 2013, on Financial Services and its modifications. Supreme Decree No. 27113 of July 23, 2003, which regulates Law No. 2341. The Legal Reserve Regulation for Financial Intermediation Entities approved by Board Resolution No. 76/2022 of August 26, 2022 and its modifications. Board Resolution No. 62/2026 of May 12, 2026, which approves modifications to articles 6 and 16 of the Legal Reserve Regulation for Financial Intermediation Entities. Board Resolution No. 63/2026 of May 12, 2026, which approves modifications to articles 30, 31, 33, 41 and 42 and the Additional, First and Second Transitional Provisions of the Legal Reserve Regulation for Financial Intermediation Entities. Board Resolution No. 64/2026 of May 20, 2026, which postpones until June 8, 2026 the entry into force of the modification of article 16 of the Legal Reserve Regulation for Financial Intermediation Entities, approved in article 2 of Board Resolution No. 62/2026 of May 12, 2026. The Appeal for Revocation filed by La Promotora Financial Entity for Housing on June 12, 2026.

BOARD II. B.R.N° 107/2026 The Statute of the BCB approved by Board Resolution No. 85/2026 of June 23, 2026. Board Resolution No. 89/2026 of June 26, 2026 which approves modifications to articles 18, 30, 31, 32, 33, 41 and 42 and the First Transitional Provision of the Legal Reserve Regulation for Financial Intermediation Entities. The report BCB-GEF-SASF-DANdNF-2026-12 of July 6, 2026, from the Financial Entities Management (GEF) and the Economic Policy Advisory (APEC). The report BCB-GAL-SANO-DLBCI-INF-2026-172 of July 8, 2026, from the Legal Affairs Management (GAL).

CONSIDERING: That the Political Constitution of the State in its articles 327 and 328 establishes that the BCB is a public law institution, with legal personality and its own assets, and that, within the framework of the State's economic policy, it is the function of the BCB to maintain the stability of the internal purchasing power of the currency, to contribute to economic and social development; and it has as attributes, in coordination with the economic policy determined by the Executive Branch, in addition to those indicated by law, to determine and execute monetary policy, execute exchange policy, regulate the payment system, authorize the issuance of currency and manage international reserves.

That Law No. 1670 in its articles 1, 2 and 3 provides that the BCB is the sole monetary and exchange authority of the country, with administrative, technical and financial competence and specialized normative powers of general application. Its object is to seek the stability of the internal purchasing power of the national currency. The BCB will formulate policies of general application in monetary, exchange and payment system matters for the fulfillment of its object.

That said Law, in its article 7 establishes that the BCB may establish legal reserves of mandatory compliance by Banks and financial intermediation entities (EIF). Their composition, amount, method of calculation, characteristics and remuneration, will be established by the Board of the Bank, by an absolute majority of votes. The control and supervision of the legal reserve will correspond to the Financial System Supervisory Authority (ASFI).

BOARD //3. B.R.N° 107/2026 That in its articles 30, 37 and 39 Law No. 1670 provides that all entities of the financial intermediation system and financial services, whose operation is authorized by the ASFI, are subject to the normative competence of the BCB; and that the BCB will be the depository of the liquid reserves destined to cover the legal reserve and attend the payment system and other operations with the BCB of the financial intermediation entities subject to the authorization and control of the ASFI; and that the overdue obligations of banks and financial entities with the BCB, may be collected through debits to the reserve account and others that the debtor entity maintains at the BCB, without prejudice to using other forms of recovery of such obligations.

That in articles 44 and 54 subsections a), i) and o) of Law No. 1670 provides that the highest authority of the BCB is its Board, which is responsible for defining its policies, specialized normative rules of general application and internal rules; as well as establishing administrative, operational and financial strategies of the Issuing Entity, approving their respective short and medium-term programs. Likewise, it establishes that the Board has the attributes to issue the rules and adopt the general decisions that would be necessary for the BCB to fulfill the functions, competencies and powers assigned to it by Law; fix and regulate the administration of the legal reserve to which banks and other financial entities must be subject, disposing of the measures for its compliance; as well as approve, modify and interpret the Statute and Regulations of the BCB by two-thirds of the votes of all its members, without the need for an additional administrative act.

That article 55 of said Law states that Board resolutions of the BCB may be challenged by any natural or legal person or competent organ of the State, by filing an appeal for revocation with devolutive effect, before the same Board within a period of thirty (30) days from the date on which the BCB made known the Resolution to the interested or affected persons. The Board must pronounce itself within the twenty (20) days following the filing of the appeal for revocation. If the Board does not pronounce itself within the period, the challenge will be understood as denied on the date of expiration of the period.

That Law No. 2341 in subsection a) of paragraph I of article 20, provides that if the period is indicated in days only administrative business days will be counted; while in article 61, it determines that the administrative resources provided for in this Law will be resolved by confirming or revoking totally or partially the challenged resolution, or in its case, dismissing the resource if it was filed out of term, did not meet the formalities expressly indicated in applicable provisions or if it did not meet the requirement of standing.

BOARD //4. B.R.N° 107/2026 That the Regulation to the Law of Administrative Procedure in its article 121 establishes the forms of resolution of the appeals for revocation.

That in paragraph 1 of its article 426 Law No. 393, provides that EIFs must ensure that at all times and under different alternative scenarios, they have adequate levels of liquidity and sufficient resources to guarantee the continuity of operations and the timely attention of their obligations, considering the complexity and volume of their operations and the risk profile they are assuming.

That the Statute of the BCB, in numerals 1 and 3 of article 6 and numerals 1, 6, 22 and 43 of article 11, determines that the BCB has normative and technical competence and that its Board has as attributes; approve the general decisions and issue the rules that are necessary for the BCB to fulfill the functions, competencies and powers assigned to it by Law; establish by absolute majority of votes, legal reserves of mandatory compliance by financial intermediation entities and approve their composition, amount, calculation, characteristics, forms of administration, custody and remuneration; approve, modify and interpret the Statute and Regulations of the BCB: and resolve appeals for revocation, within the legal periods provided.

CONSIDERING: That through Board Resolutions No. 62/2026 and No. 63/2026, the Highest Authority of the BCB resolved to approve modifications to articles 6, 16, 30, 31, 33, 41 and 42 and to the Additional and First and Second Transitional Provisions of the Legal Reserve Regulation for Financial Intermediation Entities.

That with the formalities and within the period established in article 55 of Law No. 1670 and under the shelter of the principle of informalism enshrined in Law No. 2341, La Promotora Financial Entity for Housing (La Promotora EFV) presents an Appeal for Revocation against Board Resolution No. 62/2026 which modifies article 6 (Legal Reserve Rates) and article 16 (Funds in Custody) and against Board Resolution No. 63/2026 which modifies article 31 (CPVIS II Fund), article 33 (CPVIS III Fund) and article 42 (CPRO Fund), all of the Legal Reserve Regulation for Financial Intermediation Entities, requesting to resolve the appeal, declaring the revocation of Board Resolutions No. 62/2026 and of the modification of articles 31, 33 and 42 approved by Board Resolution No. 63/2026, leaving without legal effect the obligation of gradual and early repayment fixed from July 15, 2026 and ordering the validity of the

BOARD //5. B.R. N° 107/2026 deadlines and repayment to September 30, 2026 for the CPVIS II and CPVIS III Funds and to December 30, 2026 for the CPRO Fund.

That having reviewed the arguments of the appellant and considering the reports BCB-GEF-SASF-DAN-INF-202642 from GEF and APEC, BCB-GAL-SANO-DLBCI-INF-2026-172 from GAL, and the information and criteria raised in the Board meeting, it is appropriate to state the following:

1. Board Resolutions No. 62/2026 and No. 63/2026 have been approved in accordance with the mandate and constitutional attributes provided for in articles 327 and 328 of the Political Constitution of the State and the object, specialized normative competence and functions of the BCB contained in articles 1, 2, 3, 7, 30 and 37 of Law No. 1670, within whose framework the Issuing Entity is the sole monetary and exchange authority of the country, with technical competence and specialized normative powers of general application, having as its object to seek the stability of the internal purchasing power of the national currency and to formulate policies of general application in monetary, exchange and payment system matters, with the entities of the intermediation and financial services system authorized by ASFI subject to its technical competence and specialized normative powers, insofar as the establishment of legal reserves of mandatory compliance, whose composition, amount, method of calculation, characteristics and remuneration will be defined by its Board, corresponding to the ASFI its control and supervision.

In this framework, the measures adopted through the challenged Resolutions constitute monetary policy instruments oriented to preserve liquidity, financial stability and macroeconomic equilibrium, in compliance with the public interest that the BCB has the legal duty to protect. Consequently, the eventual adjustments that EIFs must make in their financial planning, liquidity management or funding structure constitute an inherent consequence of a sector subject to prudential regulation and do not affect the legality of the measures adopted. To sustain otherwise would imply subordinating the fulfillment of the BCB's legal mandate to the particular interests of the supervised entities, a legally inadmissible conclusion, since the public interest involved in the preservation of monetary and financial stability prevails over the expectations or management decisions of an individual entity.

2. Now well, after the resource presented by La Promotora EFV, the Board of the BCB within the framework of its attributes, approved through Board

BOARD //6. B.R.N° 107/2026 Resolution No. 89/2026 (not reached by the appeal), modifications to articles 31, 33 and 42 of the Legal Reserve Regulation for Financial Intermediation Entities challenged and which at present constitutes the current and applicable regulation. Consequently, although it corresponds to reject the appeal, since the appeal claim has lost the aptitude to produce the legal effect sought with respect to an act that has been left without effect; with the purpose of providing a comprehensive response to the arguments exposed by the appellant entity, thus guaranteeing the right of the administrative subject to obtain an express, motivated and congruent resolution with respect to the claims formulated, it is appropriate to point out the following:

a) Regarding the alleged infringement of the duty of prudent liquidity planning and violation of article 426 of Law No. 393 of Financial Services. The appellant confuses the exercise of the BCB's normative competence for the fulfillment of its mandate, with the duty of prudent liquidity management, which falls on the EIFs, pointing out a supposed obligation of the monetary authority to maintain unchanged regulatory conditions. Article 426 of Law No. 393 does not guarantee regulatory stability, but requires EIFs to adequately manage their liquidity and adapt their planning to economic, financial and regulatory changes.

The challenged Resolutions were not issued arbitrarily, since they respond to the liquidity absorption objectives provided for in the Monetary Program 2026 published prior to the mentioned Resolutions and are directed to preserve the aggregate liquidity of the financial system. Consequently, the modification of articles 6 and 16 of the Legal Reserve Regulation for Financial Intermediation Entities does not constitute a violation of said provision, therefore, the grievance lacks foundation.

b) On the alleged violation of the principle of legal security and legitimate trust due to the unilateral modification of the deadlines of the CPVIS II, CPVIS III and CPRO Funds. The appellant argues that Board Resolutions No. 62/2026 and No. 63/2026 violate the principles of legal security and legitimate trust, without considering in its argumentation, that such principles guarantee that administrative action adjusts to the law, is issued by a competent authority and pursues the public interest, but do not grant a right to the permanence or immutability of the specialized regulatory framework, nor grant to the administrative subjects a right to demand the indefinite permanence

BOARD !!1. B.R. N° 107/2026 of certain regulatory conditions. Consequently, the modification of provisions of a general nature, technically and legally supported, and adopted in the exercise of the BCB's normative power for the fulfillment of monetary policy objectives, does not constitute a violation of said principles, being the adjustments that entities must make, a consequence proper of a sector subject to a highly specialized regulatory regime.

The principle of legitimate trust cannot be interpreted as an absolute limit to the exercise of the BCB's normative power, since this protects the reasonable expectations generated by consistent actions of the Administration, but does not prevent the modification of provisions of a general nature when this responds to objective reasons, is adopted by the competent authority, is duly motivated and pursues public interest purposes, as occurs in the present case.

On the other hand, it also argues that the repayment deadlines of the CPVIS II, CPVIS III and CPRO Funds constitute consolidated and unmodifiable conditions whose modification would be illegal. However, said argument starts from a false premise, by confusing regulatory provisions with contractual obligations. The questioned deadlines originate in regulations issued by the BCB in the exercise of its legal attributes and, therefore, are susceptible to modification through the exercise of the own normative power. Consequently, Board Resolution No. 63/2026 did not alter contractual obligations or rights of the appellant, but adapted the temporal regime of repayment of said funds in accordance with the monetary policy objectives embodied in the Monetary Program 2026. Therefore, the modification of the deadlines constitutes a full exercise of the BCB's normative power and a legitimate mechanism of systemic credit contraction, by establishing a schedule for the gradual repayment of the CPVIS II, CPVIS III and CPRO funds, with effect from July 2026 until December 2028, and the consequent cancellation of national currency credits guaranteed with said resources; and not an arbitrary alteration of conditions misunderstood as agreed or subject to consensus between parties.

Regarding the argument related to the automatic debit in EIF accounts as a collection mechanism, it is appropriate to clarify that what was observed by the appellant ignores the special legal regime that governs the function of the BCB with respect to EIFs and provided for in article 39 of Law No. 1670, which expressly establishes that the overdue obligations of banks and financial entities with the BCB, may be collected through debits to the legal reserve account and to other accounts that the debtor entity maintains at the BCB itself.

BOARD //8. B.R. N° 107/2026 c) With respect to the alleged excess of administrative discretion to the detriment of the Social Interest Housing Portfolio. The appellant considers that Board Resolutions No. 62/2026 and No. 63/2026 constitute an excess of administrative discretion to the detriment of the Social Interest Housing Portfolio, an argument that lacks legal support, since the EIFs are subject to the regulations issued by the BCB within the scope of its competencies, within whose framework, the general rules for the execution of monetary policy constitute the exercise of a power expressly conferred by Law No. 1670 and not an arbitrary or ultra vires act. In matters of monetary and financial policy, the BCB has a margin of technical competence to adequately adapt its monetary policy instruments to economic and financial conditions, without this implying an excess of discretion.

The BCB, in the exercise of its technical competence can adequately adapt the regulatory instruments to the changing conditions of the economic and financial environment, this margin of action does not constitute an excess of power, but an indispensable tool for the effective fulfillment of the constitutional mandate and its object.

National jurisprudence and administrative doctrine have repeatedly recognized that there is no excess of discretion when the authority acts within the competence attributed by law, pursues a legitimate purpose, respects the applicable procedure and adopts measures reasonably linked to the public objectives it must protect, as happens in the present case. Consequently, the challenged Resolutions were issued within the framework of the legal attributes of the BCB, with technical support and oriented to the fulfillment of monetary policy objectives, therefore the alleged grievance lacks foundation.

d) Regarding the argument of the own act and the alleged threat of violation of due process. The theory of own acts requires the existence of a prior act that generates a consolidated legal situation or a legitimately protected legitimate trust, as well as a subsequent contradictory act. Such premises do not concur in the present case, since the issuance and subsequent modification of regulatory provisions constitute successive manifestations of the exercise of the same competence of the BCB and not a contradictory behavior. The initially valid regulation did not generate a

BOARD 119. B.R.N° 107/2026 right to its permanence nor an autolimitation of the legal competencies of the Issuing Entity to adapt the regulation in accordance with the objectives of monetary policy. Accepting the appellant's thesis would imply sustaining that every regulatory modification constitutes a contradiction with the previously valid provisions, emptying the normative power legally attributed to the BCB of content. Likewise, the alleged violation of due process is inappropriate, since the appellant does not identify the affectation of any procedural guarantee, limiting the reasoning to the disagreement with the content of the challenged Resolutions, therefore, such argumentation is not appropriate.

The appellant confuses the theory of own acts with the guarantees of due process, since even if its argument on own acts were accepted, it would not automatically imply a violation of due process; whose lesion implies demonstrating, for example: incompetence of the authority; restriction of the right of defense; or any other procedural irregularity susceptible of configuring a non-observance of the process. On the contrary, the controversy raised focuses exclusively on the disagreement of the appellant with the normative decisions adopted by the BCB.

That for the arguments exposed above, Board Resolutions No. 62/2026 and No. 63/2026 do not contravene the current legal order in the mandate, object, the attributes, powers and functions of the BCB provided for in the Political Constitution of the State and Law No. 1670.

That in merit to article 55 of Law No. 1670, the Board of the BCB is empowered to resolve the Appeal for Revocation filed by La Promotora EFV.

THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF THE CENTRAL BANK OF BOLIVIA, RESOLVES:

Article 1.- Deny the Appeal for Revocation filed on June 12, 2026 by La Promotora Financial Entity for Housing, confirming in its entirety Board Resolution No. 62/2026 of May 12, 2026 and rejecting the challenge to articles 31, 33 and 42 of Board Resolution No. 63/2026 of May 12, 2026, as they are no longer in effect due to Board Resolution No. 89/2026 of June 26, 2026.

Article 2.- The Legal Affairs Management is in charge of notifying this Resolution to the appellant at its procedural address and by institutional email, since the appellant has expressly and voluntarily indicated such means of notification.

La Paz, July 10, 2026

SIGNED: DAVID IVAN ESPINOZA TORRICO, Claudia Haydee Pacheco Ayala, Dennise Sussan Martin Alarcón, Walter Fernando Orellana Rocha, Alvaro Alfonso Romero Villavicencio.