The Association of Dominican Judges for Democracy (JUDEMO) expressed its concern about the effects and scope of the decision issued by the Committee on Ethical Behavior of the Judiciary, considering that it affects judicial independence and transgresses fundamental ethical principles.
The resolution, issued on December 22, has generated concern among members of the judiciary and raises important questions about respect for the guarantees that protect judges, according to the association.
Through a communication addressed to the Ethical Behavior Committee, JUDEMO warned that said resolution originates from an interview conducted with Judge Rigoberto Sena, linked to a journalistic publication following a judicial action that, as clarified in the document itself, had an exclusively preventive and not sanctioning nature.
Likewise, the association indicated that the resolution concludes with statements that attribute ethical responsibilities to the judge interviewed, accompanied by a public ethical recommendation and a general exhortation to the members of the Judiciary.
JUDEMO stated that “the image of the Judiciary cannot be built at the expense of undermining judicial independence.”
The organization considers that this type of pronouncements, when produced from internal interviews aimed at good judicial service, should not generate deliberative conclusions or be made public, especially when they may affect the dignity, reputation and good name of the judge involved.
In JUDEMO’s opinion, the dissemination of ethical recommendations of this nature can project to citizens the image of a reprimand or reprimand, with negative consequences for the public perception of the judicial exercise.
The association reaffirmed the judges’ commitment to the ethical values that govern the jurisdictional function, but recalled that these must be harmonized with the fundamental right to due process, as well as with the protection of human dignity, honor and good reputation of those who exercise the judiciary.
JUDEMO reiterated that the image of the Judiciary cannot be built to the detriment of judicial independence, an essential pillar of the rule of law and a democratic justice system. In that sense, he respectfully invited the Ethical Behavior Committee to a reflective and democratic dialogue about the precedent created, in defense of solid, impartial and independent justice.
JUDEMO’s statements were issued through a communication signed by its board: the president, Judge Rosanna Febrillet; the vice president, Sergio Antonio Ortega; and the secretary, Elka Reyes Olivo.
Context of the decision of the Ethical Behavior Committee
The Ethical Behavior Committee of the Judiciary urged all judges to, when drafting their judicial decisions, strictly follow the principles and values established in the Code of Ethical Behavior, with the aim of guaranteeing public ethics, institutional legitimacy and citizen confidence in the administration of justice.
This call occurs in the context of the recent decision of Judge Rigoberto Sena Ferreras, of the Permanent Care Office of the National District, who heard about the coercive measure in the case of the National Health Insurance (SENASA).
The committee, chaired by Judge Nancy Salcedo and made up of judges Justiniano Montero and María Garabito Ramírez, fulfills a preventive and pedagogical function, aimed at strengthening institutional values and promoting respect for judicial independence, without its role involving direct sanctions.
The magistrates indicated that judicial decisions must adhere to the principles of the Code of Ethical Behavior of the Judiciary, as well as the values of prudence and moderation in jurisdictional performance.
During the meeting, Judge Sena Ferreras reiterated his commitment to ethics, transparency and respect for due process, highlighting the importance of prudence and moderation in judicial work, as well as the commitment of the Judiciary to the highest ethical standards.
The Committee urged all members of the Judiciary to reflect on their actions, both public and private, and to draft their judicial decisions in accordance with the principles established in the Code of Ethical Behavior.
