He Constitutional Court (TC) declared non-compliant with the Magna Carta first article of two provisions of the Council of Aldermen of the Municipal Council of Azua that had limited the proliferation of lottery banks in that town.
It is about the Ordinance 12-2014approved in September 2014, in which the installation of new lottery banks and the Ordinance 08-2019in which the Council decided not to grant new “no objections” certifications to allow the operation of more betting centers in the Azua territory.
In both they were established exceptions who were questioned for their lack of reasonableness and clarity of criteria.
The first would allow “cases in which municipal authorities can observe full compliance of the law by its owners.” The duration of the second was conditioned by the emergence of a new resolution to cancel it.
These regulations were in force until Mr. Fernando Antonio Guzmán Castroidentified as the owner of the goodwill called Banca Real, filed an application against him with the TC in April 2025, which resulted in ruling TC/1167/25, of November 11, 2025.
Guzmán alleged that the aforementioned municipal acts transgressed the fundamental rights to the freedom of enterpriseto free and fair competition, to property and to work; In addition to the fact that they contravened the principles of constitutional supremacy, an essential function of the State, pro homine (pro persona), reasonableness and the tax regime.
He also argued that the local administration had exceeded the powers granted to it by its own Constitution.
- The TC denied the plaintiff the reason regarding these argumentsbut applied to the attacked resolutions a rationality test that these did not overcome.
The constitutional plenary analyzed whether there was a logical and rational relationship between the legitimate purposewhich was to control the proliferation of commercial activities related to gambling to preserve the public orderurban planning and social interest, and the means used to achieve them.
The judges’ conclusion was that they were “unjustified and contrary to principle of reasonableness” in several aspects.
Regarding Ordinance number 12-2014, they criticized that it did not contemplate a specific duration period proportional to the purpose sought and that it did not establish specific criteria on which legal provision it was referring to when it spoke of “full compliance of the law.”
This lack of precision generates the possibility of administrative arbitrariness, which, in the opinion of the court, causes the interpretation and application of the measure to be left to the discretion of the authority.
In relation to the Ordinance number 08-2019the justices found it incorrect that there was no specific period during which “no objection” certifications would not be granted, nor specific criteria under which recipients could obtain them.
Furthermore, it was not indicated which resolution It is the one that should intervene to render the previous one void (judicial, administrative, legislative or municipal).
“The certainty of this criterion reaches a greater degree of evidence when we compare them with that adopted by the aforementioned article 8 of Law number 139-11 (To increase tax revenues and allocate greater resources in education) which, although it established the prohibition of new lottery banks (for 10 years), the legislator established clear parametersobjective and reasonable, allowing their conformity with the Constitution and the criteria of this constitutional seat,” reads the ruling.
By virtue of the above, the TC decided to annul the provisions in question, although it did recognize the power of the Council of Aldermen to dictate them.
“The purpose pursued by the aforementioned council of councilors through the indicated municipal provisions is legitimate, as it is limited to exercising a power expressly recognized by the Constitution and its organic law, which preliminarily does not threaten or affect the principles and fundamental rights invoked (by the plaintiff)”, indicates the text of the ruling.
