The process of constitutional change in the Dominican Republic, which I mentioned in a previous post, has successfully come to an end. On January 26th, after a long, thorough, and civil process (characteristics that have been conspicuously absent in the region’s recent wave of “constitutional revolutions” in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador) a new constitution was promulgated in the Dominican Republic. Well, the Dominicans call it new but it really was a huge amendment process carried through in all its steps precisely as the Constitution of 1966 prescribes. Our colleagues Elkins, Ginsburg, and Melton (2009, 55) distinguish a constitutional amendment from a replacement if the actors claim to follow the amending procedures of the existing constitution. The weird thing in the Dominican Republic is that the actors call it a new constitution although they followed to the letter the amending requirements of the previous constitution. This is, thus, a tricky and fun case to measure constitutional endurance.
The reforms were proposed by current president, Leonel Fernández, whose party has 68%of the seats in the Senate and 54% of the seats in the Chamber of Deputies, a cozy majority to pass laws but not constitutional amendments which had to be negotiated with other political forces. The reforms obtained the support of the second biggest party in the final vote, the Reformist Christian Party (PRC). According to some observers, the price for the consent of the PRC may be the inclusion of the most polemic change in the constitution: the protection of life since the moment of conception.
Regarding the judiciary, the reforms created a Constitutional Tribunal and strengthened the instruments for constitutional review. One innovation in the judicial system is the creation of a judicial council plus a so-called council of magistrates. The first is composed by members of all levels of the judiciary and has with vast powers to nominate and oversee the performance of lower court judges. The second is composed by members of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches and will designate judges for the Supreme Court and Constitutional Tribunal.
Some other interesting features of the new Dominican constitution are the inclusion of instruments of direct democracy, referendum and plebiscite, as well as a requirement of an approbatory referendum for future constitutional amendments that change fundamental rights. Regarding the torny issue of presidential reelection, Art. 124 states that "the president will be elected for a four year term and can not be elected for the following constitutional period". Whether Leonel Fernández will step down in 2012 or will argue that he can run for his first term under the new constitution is to be seen.
JRF
main content
2.14.2010
A New Constitution in the Dominican Republic
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Categories
- AALS (1)
- abortion (4)
- Afghanistan (2)
- amendment (3)
- Arend Lijphart (1)
- Australia (4)
- Austria (1)
- Belgium (1)
- berkeley (1)
- bilingualism (1)
- bill of rights (2)
- Bolivia (1)
- Bosnia (3)
- budget (1)
- Bulgaria (1)
- C-SPAN (1)
- campaign finance; election (1)
- Canada (9)
- Chile (2)
- China (4)
- Claudia Haupt (4)
- Colombia (1)
- consociational democracy (1)
- constitutional amendment (2)
- constitutional change (11)
- constitutional convention (1)
- constitutional convergence (2)
- constitutional design (6)
- constitutional interpretation (4)
- constitutional law (2)
- Constitutional Monarchy (1)
- constitutional pluralism (1)
- constitutional politics (6)
- constitutional review (2)
- constitutional theory (2)
- constitutionalism (1)
- constitutionalization (2)
- consultation (2)
- coup (1)
- Court of Cassation (1)
- courts (3)
- criminal justice (2)
- Criminal Law (2)
- crucifixes (1)
- culture (1)
- Czech Republic (1)
- Dahlia Lithwick (1)
- Daniel Lansberg-Rodriguez (3)
- David Kennedy (1)
- death penalty (1)
- Democratic Party of Japan (3)
- Denny's (1)
- dignity (1)
- Discretion (1)
- Dominic Nardi (1)
- Dominican Republic (2)
- Donald Clarke (1)
- Economist (1)
- education (2)
- Egypt (1)
- election (7)
- electoral malapportionment (2)
- emergency powers (1)
- empirical legal studies (1)
- enemy combatants (1)
- environment (1)
- equality rights (2)
- ethics (1)
- ethnic discrimination (1)
- European Convention on Human Rights (6)
- European Court of Human Rights (5)
- European Court of Justice (2)
- European Union (2)
- extradition (1)
- federalism (3)
- filibuster (2)
- film (1)
- Fiona De Londras (1)
- gay marriage (1)
- gay rights (5)
- Georgia (1)
- Germany (5)
- global administrative law (1)
- Greece (1)
- Guantanamo Bay (2)
- guns (1)
- Herzegovina (1)
- honduras (7)
- hp (197)
- HP; constitutional design (1)
- hp; Tom Ginsburg (3)
- inaugural post (1)
- India (5)
- information (1)
- interamerican democratic charter (1)
- international law (2)
- Iran (1)
- iraq (8)
- Ireland (2)
- Israel (8)
- Italy (2)
- Japan (11)
- Jeffrey Dunoff (1)
- Job postings (1)
- Joel Trachtman (1)
- judicial appointments (7)
- judicial elections (4)
- judicialization (4)
- jury system (2)
- Kenpo (1)
- Kenya (11)
- Kohei Nasu (2)
- kuwait (1)
- Kyrgyzstan (2)
- Labor rights (2)
- language (1)
- Language rights (2)
- Latin America (19)
- Law and Society Association; (1)
- Liberal Democratic Party (2)
- local government law (1)
- Lorenzo Zucca (1)
- Macedonia (1)
- Malaysia (1)
- Mark Kende (1)
- Mark Kende (13)
- Mark Kende hp (7)
- methodology (1)
- Mexico (3)
- Miguel Schor (2)
- minarets (1)
- MPSA (1)
- Muslims (1)
- Myanmar (1)
- Nepal (1)
- Nicaragua (1)
- niger (3)
- Norio Wakui (2)
- North Korea (1)
- Omar Khadr (1)
- Organization of American States (1)
- Pakistan (4)
- Palestine (1)
- parakeet (1)
- Philippines (2)
- privatization (1)
- process (3)
- Proposition 8 (1)
- Queen (1)
- ratification (2)
- referenda (1)
- religion (6)
- religious discrimination (1)
- reports (2)
- research (1)
- retirement (1)
- Richard Albert (16)
- right to die (1)
- right to food (1)
- Romania (1)
- rule by law (1)
- ruling the world (1)
- saiban-in seido (1)
- scholarship (1)
- secularism (1)
- senate (1)
- Senate of Canada (1)
- Sentencing (1)
- socioeconomic rights (1)
- Somalia (2)
- south africa (1)
- South Korea (1)
- Spain (1)
- state constitutions (2)
- Stephen Harper (2)
- Sudan (2)
- summer law programs (1)
- Supreme Constitutional Court of Egypt (1)
- Supreme Court justices (1)
- Supreme Court of Canada (5)
- Supreme Court of Japan (3)
- Supreme Court of the United States (2)
- Suzanna Kingston (1)
- Sweden (1)
- Switzerland (1)
- Sylvio Berlusconi (1)
- Taiwan (2)
- Tamir Moustafa (1)
- term limits (15)
- Terrorism; Guantanamo Bay (1)
- Thailand (1)
- Togo (1)
- Tokuji Izumi (3)
- Tokujin Matsudaira (1)
- Tonga (1)
- torture (1)
- transitional justice (2)
- Turkey (4)
- United Kingdom (5)
- united nations (1)
- United States (5)
- venezuela (1)
- Victor Ferreres Comella (1)
- Zimbabwe (1)
Archives
-
▼
2010
(120)
-
►
August
(10)
- Iraqi constitutional failure and external enforcem...
- An Unconstitutional Constitutional Amendment?
- A Culture of Impunity in Niger?
- A constitutional right to food for India?
- Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina dis...
- A Canadian at Guantanamo Bay
- Proportionality and Justice Breyer's New Book
- Kenya says yes
- California's gay marriage ban struck down as uncon...
- Looking like "yes" in Kenya
-
►
July
(14)
- The unstable presidentialization of Japan's parlia...
- Georgian President seeks new draft
- “… far more onerous than the restrictions found in...
- Constitution-making in Somalia
- Veiled Equality and Secularism.
- Argentina Legalizes Gay Marriage
- The Law and the Social Reality of Other Constituti...
- Political Parties and Comparative Constitutional L...
- Important Decision from European Court of Human Ri...
- Televising Supreme Court nomination hearings
- Serving up Constitutional Kaldreta in the Philippi...
- Free Exercise and State Establishment Redux
- Summer Travel and Comparative Constitutional Law
- Extraterritorial application of European human rig...
-
►
June
(11)
- German Right to Die Case and Supreme Court Confirm...
- and Kyrgyz Republic passes the Constitution
- Embattled Government of Kyrgyzstan seeks referendu...
- A Supreme Court vs. Religious Authorities Showdown...
- More Soccer and Comparative Constitutionalism
- World Cup and U.S. Supreme Court Nominations
- The Legal Status of the Queen in Canada
- Enacting Constitutionalism
- Political (and constitutional) Turmoil in Belgium
- Xenophobia in South Africa and the U.S.
- Abortion foes battle Kenya draft
-
►
May
(9)
- German President Resigns
- Dominic Nardi on Pakistan's Judiciary: Suo Moto Ta...
- Greece, the Euro, and the FCC
- 2010 Annual Meeting of the Law & Society Associati...
- Wiki-constitutionalism?
- Kagan Confirmation Controversy?
- US Supreme Court debate to heat up again
- New Socio-Economic Rights Book
- Rights at Work?
-
▼
February
(19)
- Colombian Judges Stop Álvaro Uribe's Reelection Pl...
- Chinese Constitutionalism
- Socio-Economic Rights Resource
- Survey of empirical research on constitutions, con...
- Prelude to the End of Mandatory Minimums in Canada...
- “Decolonizing” Justice in Bolivia?
- Niger: Another Term Limit Violator Bites the Dust
- Czech court outlaws extreme right party
- Canadian Religion Cases
- A New Constitution in the Dominican Republic
- Is the Filibuster a Constitutional Convention?
- Myanmar's Constitution: Born to Fail?
- Constitutional courts in hot political water in Bo...
- Summer Programs in Comparative Constitutional Law
- Third Stage of Socio-Economic Rights
- Chinese Constitutionalism Again...
- Japan's Prosecutors Score a Big Win
- Renewing the Upper Chamber in Canada
- Kenya process moves forward...
-
►
August
(10)
Our partners:
Home |
About |
Repository | Reports |
Blog |
Resources |
Contact
XHTML | CSS |
Section 508
Copyright ConstitutionMaking.ORG: Resources for Constitutional Design 2008-2010. | Site by Soul Identity

2 comments:
"The weird thing in the Dominican Republic is that the actors call it a new constitution although they followed to the letter the amending requirements of the previous constitution."
I think it is fairly usual for people to speak this way when a whole new document is adopted or big changes are made. For example I gather that the current Japanese Constitution of 1947 was adopted using the amendment procedures of the old imperial constitution. Nobody says that Japan is still using its 1890 constitution.
For the purpose of assessing constitutional endurance I think it makes sense to make a firm distinction between an 'amendment' and a 'new' constitution. But as used in ordinary speech these concepts are more ambiguous.
Thanks for the comment. I totally agree. In many occasions, however, as Elkins, Ginsburg, and Melton nicely show (2009), it is not straightfoward to make a firm distinction between an amendment and a new constitution. In the case of the Dominican Republic, a "legalist" classification rule (i.e. did the changes were carried out following the procedures established in the current constitution?) would result considering the recent changes as amendments to the Constitution of 1966, despite the fact that the government has published the Constitution of 2010. But that classification rule may run into trouble in some cases, e.g. if following the amending procedures some articles that are considered essential for a constitution are changed (like the democratic, republican, or federal characteristics of a given country).
Post a Comment