Ethical Behavior Committee

The Ethical Conduct Committee, opines.

As a general rule, it cannot be concluded that judges are prohibited from acting as credit guarantors, since what the Code of Ethical Conduct indicates in Prohibition No. 6 is that judges and judicial administrative servants are prohibited from "Exceeding their proven financial solvency, as this promotes suspicion and undermines the credibility of justice.

Our recommendation is to act with due prudence, in the sense of taking into account that the amount of the loan and its installments, (which could be enforceable by the creditor in case of default of the principal debtor), does not exceed its proven economic solvency capacity, as this could undermine the credibility and transparency of justice.

The Ethical Conduct Committee, opines.

Article 151.1 of the Constitution of the Dominican Republic establishes that: "service in the Judicial Branch is incompatible with any other public or private function, except teaching".

For its part, Article 4 of Law No. 821 of November 21, 1927, on Judicial Organization establishes that: "judicial functions are incompatible with the exercise of any other public function or employment, salaried or not; with the exception of teaching...".

Similarly, international jurisprudence regarding functional incompatibilities has considered that "in principle and as clearly defined in the constitutional text, the only activities that are compatible with the judicial function are those related to the academic activity of university teaching or at some other level, as well as scientific research.

Finally, it is appropriate to emphasize that the activities in which a position such as the one he would hold in this process must participate, would at some point cause a state of distraction or absence, of the functions of his position as a judge of a court, without leaving aside other consequences that could trigger this type of electoral process, which can become litigious and reach the courts, so that such function as a member of the electoral committee, may collide with the ethical principles that govern us, such as prudence.

For all these reasons, this Committee is of the opinion that the function of judge and the function of member of an electoral committee are not compatible in light of the Dominican Constitution, the laws and the Code of Ethical Conduct of the Judiciary.

The Ethical Conduct Committee, opines.

The Committee understands that it is not advisable to carry out this banking operation, since it must justify this deposit before the Chamber of Accounts at the time of making its sworn statement.

The Ethical Conduct Committee, opines.

The Committee reflected on the right of a judge to associate for lawful purposes, which is established in Article 47 of the Constitution. In this case, it is an international association on the right of refugees and migrants. Moreover, the fact of associating is not contrary to the principles of the Code of Ethical Conduct. For this reason, this Committee is of the opinion that the right of association is not contrary to the provisions of the Code of Ethical Behavior and the rules of the career law.

The Ethical Conduct Committee, opines.

In this regard, the Committee refers to the following texts:

The Code of Ethical Conduct of the Judiciary prohibits judges from "receiving gifts, presents, donations or benefits .... (Prohibition No. 21)". Article 44, paragraphs 5 and 8 of the Judicial Career Law No. 327-98 establishes the prohibition for judges to accept or receive gratuities, gifts, presents, gifts or benefits as compensation for their office.

Likewise, this prohibition is ratified in Article 149 numeral 3 of the Regulations of the Judicial Career, dated November 1, 2000. The same prohibition is imposed on administrative servants in Article 68 numeral 23 of the Judicial Administrative Career Regulations, contained in Resolution No. 22-2018, which repealed Resolution No. 3471-2008.

This prohibition is also provided for in Article 80 paragraph 1 of the Civil Service Law No. 41-08, which extends to judges.

The Ethical Conduct Committee, opines.

After having analyzed the case, the Committee has considered the following:

To measure the level of compatibility between the function of judge and the functions of director or dean of a university, it is important to define the scope of these administrative and remunerative functions with respect to teaching.

This reflection obliges us to resort to the constitutional text and to the legal texts that refer to the subject in question.

Article 151.1 of the Constitution of the Dominican Republic establishes that: "service in the Judicial Branch is incompatible with any other public or private function, except teaching".

Similarly, Article 4 of Law No. 821 of November 21, 1927, on Judicial Organization establishes that: "judicial functions are incompatible with the exercise of any other public function or employment, salaried or not; with the exception of teaching...".

Based on the aforementioned constitutional and legal texts, it is necessary to define the teaching function, the teaching staff and the function of the director of an academy, university or institute and thus determine the case in question.

Docencia, according to the Dictionary of the Spanish Language, means: "practice and exercise of teaching"; being docente "(from the Latin. docens, -entis, part. actact. of docere, to teach)", that "who teaches" or that "pertaining or relating to teaching".

On the other hand, professor "(from lat. professor, -oris)" is defined as "a person who exercises or teaches a science or art" and professorship as "teaching position" or "body of professors".

On the other hand, the activities performed within the management of a university faculty, institute, school or department, are not assimilated to the teaching function, but constitute managerial and executive functions of such academic institution. For them, an economic compensation is received, which is not harmonized with hours of classes given, but for another set of tasks that such management functions entail; this is what the regulations of the Dominican Higher Education, Science and Technology System call "those responsible for the academic-administrative management: rectors, vice-rectors, deans, directors of institutes, schools, academic and research programs of higher education institutions [...]".

According to the foregoing, it is reasonable to conclude that the function of teacher and that of director, dean or other analogous function have a different connotation; and, therefore, the constitutional text only supports teaching as the only function compatible with the function of judge, but not that of being a director or dean, which constitute administrative and not teaching activities.

This is the opinion of one of the most prominent writers on the subject of ethics, when he states: "that the existence of a compatibility between teaching and the judiciary has constitutional status (art. 151, paragraph 1) and therefore, it cannot be excluded as a possibility as long as it does not interfere with the main obligation of the magistrate, which is linked to the exercise of the judicial function".

In relation to the non-teaching and managerial functions of the academic institution in question, the aforementioned professor states that this managerial function "is linked -among other things- with the teaching function performed by the other professors and that those who are managers must ensure that it is duly exercised. And for this reason, a natural and obvious incompatibility arises. To argue otherwise, could not pass the test of the reasonable observer (art. 8 inc. 'a' of the Code of Ethical Conduct) since, the mentioned judge-dean, has to take a set of definitions that exceed the fact of giving classes, but has to solve problems that the same management and dynamics that a Faculty has, for example, and a temporary exercise that is difficult to know how long it is; since they are not planned hours of class but unforeseen agendas. For all these reasons, a Dean is paid a salary that tries to take care of these variables".

Similarly, international jurisprudence regarding functional incompatibilities has considered that "in principle and as clearly defined in the constitutional text, the only activities that are compatible with the judicial function are those related to the academic activity of university teaching or at some other level, as well as scientific research.

Regarding the compatibility of the judicial function with the coordination of an academic center, the Argentine Court of Judicial Ethics has also ruled on the consultation made by the investigating prosecutor, who, pursuant to rule 6.4 of the Code of Judicial Ethics, informs that "in his teaching activity carried out in an establishment of a locality where the career Higher Technician in Legal Sciences is taught -depending on an Institute of another city- he has been offered to perform the task of Academic Coordinator".

In this case, which is similar to the function of a judge, the Court of Judicial Ethics resolved to inform the Prosecutor of Multiple Jurisdiction, in response to the consultation formulated, "that it is not ethically advisable to act as Academic Coordinator, since the aforementioned position exceeds the compatibility with the requirements of the judicial function and its exercise is not viable with the performance that corresponds to it within the Administration of Justice (Code of Ethics for Judges and Judicial Branch Officials, rule 3. 9, last paragraph)".

Finally, it is appropriate to emphasize that these administrative tasks involved in the managerial function would create "a state of distraction that is naturally greater than that foreseen when only teaching classes". And, in this sense, prohibition number 24 of the Code of Ethical Conduct comes into effect, stating that judges are forbidden to "participate as lecturers in universities during regular service hours, even if it is an unpaid service, except in the case of an activity of the National School of the Judiciary".

For all these reasons, this Committee is of the opinion that the function of judge and the function of director of an academic institution are not compatible in light of the Dominican Constitution, the laws and the Code of Ethical Conduct of the Judiciary.

In this regard, the General Directorate of Administration and Judicial Careers is instructed to communicate the opinion of the Committee to the aforementioned magistrate regarding her consultation.

In addition to this reflection, the Dominican Constitution, in Article 43, establishes as a fundamental right the free development of the personality of every person, with no limits other than those imposed by the legal order and the rights of others.

From the foregoing, it is concluded that the inclination for an artistic aspect (painting, sculpture, music or literature) is a manifestation of the development of the personality that has nothing to do with the concept of function that the constituent used to refer to the exclusivity that the judge or servant must dedicate to the judiciary, except for the exercise of teaching, which may extend to research and the production of scientific works related to legal matters, but never to the exercise of commerce.

In this regard, the administrative servants are governed by the Judicial Career Law and, specifically, by Resolution No. 22/2018, dated June 6, 2018, of the Council of the Judiciary, which approves a new Judicial Administrative Career Regulation. 22/2018, dated June 6, 2018, of the Judicial Branch Council, which approves a new Judicial Administrative Career Regulation, which, in its Article 68 establishes the prohibitions to the administrative personnel of the Judicial Branch, within which are numerals 8 and 31: "Engaging in another activity within the regular working hours, whether in the public or private sector, except in the cases provided by the laws and its regulations" and of "Doing business, purchases or personal sales during the working day, within the institution".

The same regulation, in Article 69, establishes the incompatibilities for judicial officers, specifically, paragraph 3 provides that the following are incompatible with the function of judicial officer: "The exercise of the function of attorney, notary, and the exercise of commerce, when it is related to the function performed in the institution".

On the other hand, the employee may engage in an activity that is not related to the service he/she provides in the institution. 

The Committee is of the opinion that: the commercialization of an artistic work produced by a public servant can in no way be considered as a violation of the constitutional prohibition of not being able to exercise any function or performance other than the judicial one. In any case, the public servant must always respect and give priority to his or her judicial and administrative function over any other activity, which may be exercised taking into account the principles of prudence, transparency and honesty.

In this regard, the Committee refers to the following texts:

Article 44 of the Judicial Career Law No. 327-98 establishes the following: Judges subject to the present law are prohibited: (...) PARAGRAPH II.- Spouses or cohabitants and those who are united by ties of consanguinity or affinity up to the fourth degree inclusive may not render services in the same jurisdiction or court.

Act No. 22-2016, dated June 22, 2016, issued by the Judicial Power Council, states that: (...) the entry of relatives of Judges(zas), Members of the Judicial Power Council and Judicial Servants ascendants, descendants, collaterals or relatives up to the fourth degree of consanguinity is prohibited, except by public competitive examination and similar procedures in which the personal merits of the applicant are valued.

Act No. 38-2017, dated November 1, 2017, issued by the Council of the Judiciary, states: Prohibits, in accordance with the Law, any administrative judicial servant or judge from requesting, approving, recommending, suggesting or in any other way managing the appointment of related judicial personnel, within the degree of familiarity provided by law.

Resolution No. 22/2018,dated July 4, 2018,issued by the Judicial Power Council, which repeals Resolution No. 3471-2008, and approves a new Judicial Administrative Career Regulation, establishes in its Article 69, that: Judicial administrative functions are incompatible with: (...) 4. The performance of a position, in the same court or administrative unit, of relatives and affines in direct line up to the fourth degree of consanguinity, and in collateral line relatives up to the second degree inclusive.

In this regard, the Committee on Ethical Behavior agrees with the entry into the Judiciary of employees who are family members of judges and judicial servants, as long as the due process of selection of personnel is respected and they comply with the primary evaluations to enter the bank of eligible candidates and subsequently as established by law, The selection process must also respect when these judicial servants have ethical behavior problems, or when they are in conflict with ethics and the law, and avoid influence peddling in order to remain in the institution or to climb the ladder in the system without merit.

The Ethical Conduct Committee, opines:

Articles 41 and 42 of Law No. 327-98 on Judicial Careers establish that the duties of judges are: (...) 3) To perform with interest, equanimity, dedication, efficiency, probity, impartiality and diligence the functions of their office, observing good conduct and avoiding the commission of disciplinary offenses; likewise, it is established that the general rights of all judges are: (...) 5) To obtain and use the permits and licenses established in their favor by this law.

While it is true that judges are entitled to the right to receive from the Judiciary, the necessary facilities to obtain the permits and licenses that in their favor enshrined in Law No. 327-98, on Judicial Career and its Implementing Regulations, it is no less true that such prerogatives are also regulated in the strict sense that their application does not affect the effort for the maintenance of the judicial career and the good stability of the judicial system, according to the provisions of the implementing regulations of the referred Law no. 327-98, as well as Act No. 18-2019, dated May 28, 2019, on Leave and Leave Policies of the Judicial Branch, approved by the Judicial Branch Council, and Resolution No. 005-2021, dated March 16, 2021, which modifies the Judicial Career Regulations and the Leave and Leave Policies of the Judicial Branch, which are intended to reaffirm the principles of permanence, stability, efficiency, effectiveness and efficacy, which allow maintaining the good balance of the justice system.

It is important to note that Article 138 of the implementing regulations of Law 327-98, on Judicial Careers, states that: leave of absence is understood as the official dispensation from work attendance granted to the judge for a period of up to three (3) working days; Therefore, the request made by a Judge, to be absent from his jurisdictional functions for a period of 10 working days with remuneration of salary to promote the circulation of a work of his authorship throughout all the judicial districts, becomes a request that in the first place, exceeds the time established in the norm, and secondly, the reasons for which he wishes to pursue the mentioned permission, affects the proper functioning of the judicial service, since promoting a work of literature during working hours, are incompatible with his functions as an administrator of justice, prohibitions expressly provided for in Article 44.1, of the Judicial Career Law.

In the same line of thought, this Committee considers that when an active judge in the justice system engages in the practice of promoting a work of literature during the working day, this event logically assumes that he or she expects his or her peers to attend the activity, which causes a chain reaction, which results in the absence in their jurisdictional functions of the judges who attend to support the mentioned initiative in a certain judicial district, which indisputably affects the constitutional duty to protect rights in the judicial system, on the other hand, this scenario finds a specific exception, namely, when the institution requires him/her to represent it in a certain scenario on behalf of the Judiciary in the interest of the same.

The Committee on Ethical Behavior of the Judiciary understands that the transfer to the various judicial districts or departments for the purpose of promoting a work of any type of literature by active judges of the justice system, during their working day, affects the proper functioning of the judicial service and is incompatible with the functions and duties of the judges of the Judiciary.

The Ethical Conduct Committee, opines:

In effect, it is important for this Committee to analyze the compatibility between the constitutional right to freedom of expression and information to which every citizen is entitled and the duties that come with the responsibility of being a judge in the Dominican Republic, and it is necessary to refer to the regulations in force governing the matter.

1. Article 49 of the Constitution of the Dominican Republic distinguishes freedom of expression and information as a fundamental right, establishing that: Every person has the right to freely express his thoughts, ideas and opinions, by any means, without prior censorship. (1) Everyone has the right to information. This right includes seeking, investigating, receiving and disseminating information of all kinds, of a public nature, by any means, channel or route, as determined by the Constitution and the law; 2) All information media have free access to official and private news sources of public interest, in accordance with the law; 3) Professional secrecy and the journalist's conscience clause are protected by the Constitution and the law; 4) Every person has the right to reply and rectification when he/she feels injured by information disseminated. This right shall be exercised in accordance with the law; 5) The law guarantees equitable and plural access of all social and political sectors to the media owned by the State. Paragraph. - The enjoyment of these freedoms shall be exercised with respect for the right to honor, privacy, as well as the dignity and morals of persons, especially the protection of youth and childhood, in accordance with the law and public order.

2. That, although it is true that judges are entitled to the fundamental right to freedom of expression and information and to receive from the Judicial Branch all the necessary guarantees to safeguard their legitimate right, it is no less true that the aforementioned constitutional prerogatives walk a very thin line in relation to the commitments that a judge assumes in the face of the judicial function that carries with it discrete burdens and disadvantages in order to safeguard the good stability of the justice system; therefore, the legislator, in said interest, has provided in Article 44 of Law No. 327-98. 327-98, on Judicial Careers, that: Judges subject to the present law are prohibited from: 1) Performing.

(...) 10) To give consultations in legal matters, currently of a contentious nature, or that may acquire such nature. 11) Other prohibitions established by law or regulation, or resulting from the good understanding and observance of social and administrative ethics.

3. That the responsibility that falls on every judge to administer justice in the name of the Republic is one of the most sacred functions entrusted by the Constitution, which requires parameters of discretion and impartiality and absolute prudence in relation to various aspects and scenarios in which the judicial function is developed; therefore, the relationship between judges and the media of any kind are not exempt from these parameters of discretion and impartiality and prudence.

4. That, in this regard, Rule 10 of the new Code of Ethical Conduct of the Judiciary states that: (...) Due to the professional reserve imposed, the freedom of expression of judges is a weakened right, in pursuit of preserving public confidence, as well as the rights of individuals and avoiding any affectation to impartiality; in the same sense it establishes in the guidelines on this rule that: 9. Judges must be reserved in their relations with the social media in general. They should always refrain from making comments on the cases they are dealing with and avoid any unwarranted remarks that may call into question their impartiality.

5. That in the fourth opinion of the Ibero-American Commission on Judicial Ethics, dated March 14, 2018, on ethical considerations regarding the relationship between judges and the media, said commission understands that although it is not indicated that there is no prohibition for judges to participate in the media (rather it is recognized as a right and duty), it does recognize the limitation of their freedom of expression, due to their condition, as well as the prohibition of using the media to seek notoriety or exaggerated or disproportionate recognition for their own benefit.

6. In the same line of thought, this Committee considers that when a judge active in the justice system issues an opinion in any media, he/she commits in the future or in the immediate future his/her position on a concrete or abstract case that he/she has not yet heard, and in the particular case that occupies our attention such as the radio, which by its nature entails the development of a dynamic interaction activity between the radio listeners and the person who performs the function of radio announcer, Therefore, within the aforementioned dynamics, questions may arise in this interactive activity that are beyond the control of the concerns that a judge could respond to beyond his or her faculties and that would ask to provoke an inquiry.

This is why this Committee understands that, in order to maintain a fair balance between respect for the freedom of expression of the judges of the justice system and the impartiality that they must model in order to guarantee their independence and morality both inside and outside the courts, they must refrain from issuing opinions in the media on legal issues that could compromise the justice system through unnecessary criticisms and accusations of the private interests of citizens who request an effective administration of justice, they should refrain from issuing opinions in the media on legal issues that may commit the justice system to unnecessary criticism and finger-pointing in the face of the private interests of citizens who request an effective administration of justice.

7. Similarly, in the aforementioned scenario in which a judge issues legal opinions in the media without prior authorization from the competent body of the Judiciary, to highlight some specific issue of institutional interest, the principles of the Code of Ethical Conduct would be violated, such as:

Independence: Attribute that judges must enjoy in the exercise of their jurisdictional function, which consists of their absolute sovereignty with respect to the parties involved in the proceedings, the other branches of government, higher jurisdictional bodies, and any other persons, natural or juridical.

Impartiality: Attitude of judges to be and exhibit a neutral conduct with respect to the one who requests a specific effective judicial protection and with respect to the one against whom such protection is requested. It refers not only to the decision itself, but also to the process by which that decision is made.

4. Justice and fortitude: Justice is to give to each one his due, knowing that equity adjusts to justice itself. To give justice to whom it is due is also an act of fortitude of the spirit of the giver.

5. Prudence and moderation: Behavior, attitude and decision product of a conscientious judgment, rationally justified, after having meditated and evaluated arguments and counter-arguments available within the framework of the current regulation.

6. Responsibility: Willingness and diligence in the fulfillment of the competencies, functions and tasks entrusted and to assume the consequences of public conduct, without excuses of any nature.

10. Professional secrecy and freedom of expression: Strict confidential or reserved handling that a judge must make of the information in his/her possession, due to his/her condition in the exercise of his/her duties.

their functions. The freedom of expression of judges must always be exercised with the prudence, balance and moderation that the position imposes at all times and places; especially when socializing on social networks.

Conclusion:

For these reasons, the Committee on Ethical Conduct of the Judiciary understands that it is not advisable for judges to expose themselves to the media described above for the reasons given above.

The Ethical Conduct Committee, opines:

In effect, it is relevant and important for this Committee to analyze the compatibility that exists between the constitutional right to liberty and personal security to which every citizen is entitled, and the duties, preservation and exercise of his independence and impartiality that are part of the responsibility of being a judge in the Dominican Republic, making it necessary to resort to the regulations in force governing the matter.

Article 40 of the Constitution of the Dominican Republic distinguishes as the right to personal liberty and security. "Every person has the right to personal liberty and security. Therefore:(...) 15) No one can be forced to do what the law does not command or prevented from doing what the law does not prohibit. The law is the same for all: it can only order what is just and useful for the community and can only prohibit what is harmful to it".

Article 151 of the Constitution of the Dominican Republic provides on the independence of the Judiciary. "The judges of the Judicial Branch are independent, impartial, responsible and irremovable and are subject to the Constitution and the laws. They may not be removed, separated, suspended, transferred or retired, except for one of the established causes and with the guarantees provided by law. (1) The law shall establish the regime of responsibility and accountability of judges and officials of the Judicial Branch. Service in the Judicial Branch is incompatible with any other public or private function, except teaching. Its members shall not be eligible for any public elective office, nor may they participate in partisan political activity".

Article 44 of Law No. 327-98 of August 11, 1997, on Judicial Careers, establishes the prohibitions to which judges of the Judicial Branch are subject, and it is not observed that investment in the stock market is prohibited to members of the Judicial Branch; nor is it among the incompatibilities with the functions of the Judicial Branch.

The permanent and remunerated positions of the judges subject to this law, established in Article 45 of this law.

In this regard, Rule 16 of the new Code of Ethical Conduct of the Judiciary states that: (...) "Credibility is the quality perceived by others, and consists of two key elements: reliability and professionalism, which are externalized by strict adherence to the rules and a diligent and accurate management of the process. By means of both in adequate combination, a reasonable and fair judicial response is ensured. At the same time, it diffuses credibility when it is thus fulfilled, an evident social realization of transparency for the acts performed and promotes public confidence in judicial practices".

That, in this regard, Rule 17 of the new Code of Ethical Conduct of the Judiciary states that: (...) "The judicial function and management requires that judges actively contribute to the republican system of government and therefore, the justice system will be projected to society through the widest possible information provided to the media, both classical and digital. A Judicial Branch that does not publicize its actions, processes and results does not promote public trust. The practice of accountability is not only an accounting criterion, but also a realization that is linked to the public and private responsibilities with public significance that judges have in a plural, diverse society and the safeguard of a democratic system with full respect for human dignity.

Conclusion:

The Committee on Ethical Behavior of the Judiciary, after having deliberated, concludes:

a. that judges may receive, in addition to their salary for their work, income or money for various reasons such as inheritances, loans, teaching salaries, among others; money that is part of their personal finances.

b. that investment in the financial market is a personal decision of the judge, who bears the risk involved;

c. that investment in the Stock Exchange of our country is not prohibited; on the contrary, it has been encouraged by the Institution in order to contribute with the judicial servants in the protection, investment and care of their finances;

d. that, in order to contribute to the preservation and security of its assets, it is recommended that such investment be made through an institution regulated by the Superintendency of Securities;

e. that, by virtue of Article 2 of Law No. 311-14, which establishes the National Authorized and Uniform System of Sworn Statements of Assets of Public Officials and Civil Servants, which provides that among the officials required to submit sworn statements of assets are: "Judges of the Supreme Court of Justice, of the Superior Administrative Courts and of the Superior Administrative Courts, and the judges of the Supreme Court of Justice, of the Superior Administrative Courts, and of the Supreme Court of Justice, are obliged to submit sworn statements of assets and liabilities.

other judges of the judicial order". In this sense, it is mandatory that such investment is recorded in the sworn statement reported to the Chamber of Accounts, which must be in the transparency portal of the Judicial Branch website; thereby protecting any suspicion that calls into question the transparency of the function and the credibility of the Judiciary;

f. that this constitutes an ethical commitment of the first order, as it concerns judges, who are politically exposed entities, by virtue of the provisions of Law No. 155-17 of June 1, 2017, against Money Laundering and Financing of Terrorism, which establishes that financial institutions are obliged to require the origin of the funds to be invested.

Therefore, this Committee of Ethical Behavior unanimously resolves that judges and officials of the Judicial Branch may invest their personal capital in the Dominican Republic Stock Exchange, since there is no conflict with the exercise of their functions, there is no prohibition in that sense in our regulations and it is not contrary to the Code of Ethical Behavior of the Judicial Branch.

The Ethical Conduct Committee, opines:

In effect, it is relevant and important for this Committee to analyze the compatibility that exists between the functions of a judge and being a member of a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO), as well as organizing visual art exhibition events in which economic funds are handled, the preservation and exercise of independence and impartiality that are part of the responsibility of being a judge in the Dominican Republic, making it necessary to resort to the regulations in force governing the matter.

Article 151 of the Constitution of the Dominican Republic provides on the independence of the Judiciary. "The judges of the Judicial Branch are independent, impartial, responsible and irremovable and are subject to the Constitution and the laws. They may not be removed, separated, suspended, transferred or retired, except for one of the established causes and with the guarantees provided by law. (1) The law shall establish the regime of responsibility and accountability of judges and officials of the Judicial Branch. Service in the Judicial Branch is incompatible with any other public or private function, except teaching. Its members shall not be eligible for any public elective office, nor may they participate in partisan political activity".

Article 4 of Law 821 of November 21, 1927, on Judicial Organization establishes that: "judicial functions are incompatible with the exercise of any other public function or employment, salaried or not; with the exception of teaching and positions arising from the Electoral Law. The public official who accepts another public office, ipso-facto resigns the judicial office he held".

The Sixth Opinion, of April 5, 2019, of the Ibero-American Commission on Judicial Ethics on the remunerated activities of judges outside the judicial function and their compatibility with ethics. Rapporteur: Elena Martínez Rosso, established: "It is worth starting from the premise that judges enjoy the same constitutional rights and guarantees as the rest of the citizens. In particular, it is important to highlight the rights to freedom of work and industry, freedom of expression of thought and privacy. But, at the same time, the function to which they have freely acceded imposes certain restrictions on the exercise of those same rights. With reference to this point, it is appropriate to transcribe what is stated in paragraph 4.2 of the Bangalore Principles on Judicial Conduct of 2002: "As a subject of constant public scrutiny, a judge should accept personal restrictions that may be regarded as burdensome to ordinary citizens and should do so freely and voluntarily. In particular, a judge shall conduct himself or herself in a manner consistent with the dignity of judicial office.

Commenting on this principle, it has been stated: "A judge should expect to be subjected to constant scrutiny and public comment and should therefore accept personal restrictions that ordinary citizens may regard as burdensome. A judge should thus act freely and voluntarily even if these activities would not be viewed negatively when engaged in by other members of the community or the profession. This applies both to the judge's professional conduct and to the judge's personal conduct. The legality of the judge's conduct, while important, is not the full measure of its propriety." In other words, some lawful activities may be considered as contrary to the ethics that should govern the conduct of a judge, from the point of view of a reasonable observer. In the same sense, the Ibero-American Code of Judicial Ethics establishes in Article 55, in the chapter on the integrity of the judge, that: "The judge must be aware that the exercise of the jurisdictional function involves demands that do not apply to the rest of the citizens.

The resolution of ethical problems is always a complex task, since it forces us to move in a field where there are no absolute rules, applicable regardless of time, place and ethical conscience or dominant moral values in a given environment. It is clear that any individual - among them, judges - can perform lawful tasks that, nevertheless, are morally questionable by the society in which the judicial function is performed. In this regard, it should be especially noted that the judge is required to behave ethically.

superior to that of the rest of the citizens, a condition that will raise the standard according to which the ethical evaluation of such activity should be carried out".

Similarly, the Ibero-American Code of Judicial Ethics establishes in Article 55, in the chapter on the integrity of the judge, that: "The judge must be aware that the exercise of the jurisdictional function entails demands that do not apply to other citizens".

In this regard, Rule 16 of the new Code of Ethical Conduct of the Judiciary states that: (...) "Credibility is the quality perceived by others, and consists of two key elements: reliability and professionalism, which are externalized by strict adherence to the rules and a diligent and accurate management of the process. By means of both in adequate combination, a reasonable and fair judicial response is ensured. At the same time, it diffuses credibility when it is thus fulfilled, an evident social realization of transparency for the acts performed and promotes public confidence in judicial practices".

That, in this regard, Rule 17 of the new Code of Ethical Conduct of the Judiciary states that: (...) "The judicial function and management requires that judges actively contribute to the republican system of government and, therefore, the justice system shall be projected to society through the widest possible information provided to the media, both classical and digital. A Judicial Branch that does not publicize its actions, processes and results does not promote public trust. The practice of accountability is not only an accounting criterion, but also a realization that is linked to the public and private responsibilities with public significance that judges have in a plural, diverse society and the safeguard of a democratic system with full respect for human dignity.

That, in view of the foregoing considerations, we proceed to issue the decision regarding the consultation made by the judge.

Conclusion:

The Committee of Ethical Behavior of the Judiciary, after having deliberated, concludes: That no activity outside of teaching should be carried out by the judge; since the laws are clear and in this regard state that no activities outside her functions as a judge should be carried out: The Constitution of the Republic in its Article 151, numeral 1, and Law 821-27 of Judicial Organization and its Amendments, in its Art. 4.

It is important to point out that there are innumerable NGOs that differ from the judicial activity and, in addition, are in opposition to the exercise of the judge, which may generate a conflict of interest.

Therefore, this Committee understands that no activity other than teaching should be carried out by a judge, since judicial functions are incompatible with the exercise of any other public function or employment.

The Ethical Conduct Committee, opines:

Indeed, it is relevant and important for this Committee to analyze the importance of the commercialization of books authored by judges and judicial servants. Likewise, the commercialization of courses, diplomas and master's degrees, taught by judges and judicial servants, contributes to strengthening the Justice System, since it contributes to the training of lawyers and law students, allowing them to be updated in the different legal currents.

It is important to establish that the status of judge is not lost outside the Court, but on the contrary, it is where it should be enhanced, so that society can better appreciate that the judge that one day has known from the bench, is not an imposture in his or her correctness, but is a virtuous man or woman equally sharing common and ordinary issues. The greatness of the function of being a judge is to be always in accordance with the circumstances and contexts in which it is performed.

Article 79, paragraph 12 of the Judicial Career Regulations states that "the general ranking of the Judicial Career shall reflect the following personal and professional data: (...) 12. Articles, books and monographs published on legal topics (...)". And this is also confirmed by Resolution No. 001-2021, Regulation that organizes the System of the Judicial Career Ladder and the System for the Provision of Judicial Positions, which repeals and leaves without effect Resolution No. 03-2019, which establishes the Regulation of the Judicial Career Ladder and the System for the Provision of Judicial Positions. 03-2019, which establishes the Regulation that organizes the System of the Judicial Ranking and the System for the Provision of Judicial Positions, when it expresses in its Article 13, the following: "personal merits constitute those activities performed by judges related to legal, jurisdictional knowledge, which shall be evaluated according to the following criteria: (a) Publication of books or articles, writing of didactic materials for the Judicial Branch and National School of the Judiciary and academic teaching, participation in seminars, national and international congresses, and in training activities and extraordinary services in the National School of the Judiciary", both being worth one point each for the summation made in the Judicial Ranking System and the System for the Provision of Judicial Positions, carried out for the purpose of evaluating the judges that make up the Judicial Branch.

In this regard, Rule 2 of the new Code of Ethical Conduct of the Judiciary states that: (...) "Impartiality is to provide confidence that all persons will be treated in the same way, that is, without prejudice or preference of any kind. Neither with defect, nor with excess: all of them equal before the law".

Rule 5 of the new Code of Ethical Conduct of the Judiciary also establishes that: (...) "prudence and moderation are also required of the judge in non-jurisdictional areas, where his/her actions will always be preceded by a judgment of moderation and self-control both in the decisions he/she makes and in the attitudes he/she adopts".

The literary activity of judges has been encouraged and stimulated from the National School of the Judiciary to the Supreme Court of Justice, which opened a space for judges to express themselves and write about their teachings and experiences, which is even part of the idiosyncrasy of many, to teach and share their knowledge and wisdom. But it is very different the commercialization of these books, which is prohibited by the Constitution and by our Career Law, since this activity goes against public confidence and the good name and credibility of the Judiciary. Here, not only are the judges violating the principles of prudence, moderation, credibility and neutrality described in the Code of Ethics, but it is also an abusive attitude to use spaces that should be neutral to market a book. Such activity could lend itself to possible allegations of impartiality. We understand that the judge who incurs in this should be disciplinarily sanctioned.

Summary opinion of the Committee:

It is important to establish that the status of judge is not lost outside the Court, but on the contrary, it is where it should be enhanced, so that society may better appreciate that the judge who one day met from the bench is not an imposture in his or her correctness, but is a virtuous man or woman sharing common issues. The greatness of the function of being a judge is to be always according to the circumstances and contexts in which it is performed.

In this regard, administrative servants are governed by the Judicial Career Law and, specifically, by Resolution no. 22/2018, dated June 6, 2018, of the Judicial Branch Council, which approves a new Judicial Administrative Career Regulation, which, in its Article 68, establishes the prohibitions to the administrative personnel of the Judicial Branch, within which numerals 8, 20 and 31 are: "Engaging in another activity within regular working hours, whether in the public or private sector, except in the cases provided for by the laws and its regulations"; "Making public or private statements that compromise the credibility of their function, the impartiality and independence of justice"; and from "Doing business, purchases or personal sales during the working day, within the institution".

Judges and judicial servants must model a social life that does not conflict with the Code of Ethical Behavior, having moderation and prudence in the festive activities to which they are invited. However, attending such activities during their working hours constitutes a disciplinary offense established in the Judicial Career Law.

Summary opinion of the Committee:

In fact, it is relevant and important for this Committee to analyze the consultations and permits, since it will serve as a framework for those employees who have doubts about the suitability of their requirements.

Any person working in the Judicial Branch cannot perform two functions, since the same limitations apply to administrative and judicial servants; and his primary functions as bailiff are a limitation. Likewise, the opinions that he may issue through the radio media could be misinterpreted as personal positions or those of the Judicial Branch, which is very delicate, especially since they are social opinions. In the same vein, this Committee concludes that he should refrain from participating in the program.

Summary opinion of the Committee:

This is a matter of institutional responsibility, on the part of the Council of the Judiciary, which makes the appointments and the General Director of the Judicial Career, who is the one who submits them. In the same sense, it is important to point out that in past sessions of the Council of the Judiciary through Act No. 34-2021, dated September 14, 2021, it was known in its point 2.1 on: on admission to the Judiciary of family members of judges and judicial servants, concluding: "After being weighed and analyzed the opinions of the Legal Directorate and the Human Management Directorate on the entry to the Judiciary of relatives of judges and judicial servants, as well as the opinion of the Ethical Behavior Committee, it was appreciated that Regulation 22/2018, which repeals Resolution 3471-2008 and approves the Administrative Career Regulations, being an act of general scope and subsequent to the acts 22/2016 and 38/2017 of the Judicial Power Council, left without effect the same; therefore, there is no prohibition for the entry to the Judiciary of family members of judges and judicial servants, with the legal and regulatory exception of not working in the same court or jurisdiction.

The Committee on Ethical Conduct has set the guidelines related to such consultation in Act 02-2021 dated 08/09/202, referring to by means of Act No. 022/2021, dated June 22, 2021, by which the opinion of the Committee is provided, regarding the following topic: "Entry to the Judicial Branch of relatives of judges and judicial servants"; concluding: "It is important to note what our Magna Carta establishes in its Article No. 62, which is found in Economic and Social Rights, establishes that: Right to work. Work is a right, a duty and a social function that is exercised with the protection and assistance of the State. It is an essential purpose of the State to promote decent and remunerated employment. The public authorities shall promote dialogue and consultation between workers, employers and the State. Consequently: 5) Any kind of discrimination in access to employment or during the provision of the service is prohibited, except for the exceptions provided by law for the purpose of protecting the worker.

In this sense, we agree with the admission to the Judiciary of employees who are relatives of judges and judicial servants, if the due process of selection of personnel is respected and that they comply with the primary evaluations to be able to enter the bank of eligible candidates and then, as established by law, that they are not in the same jurisdiction of the judge or judicial servant who are relatives; as well as respect when these judicial servants have problems of ethical behavior, or that conflict with ethics and the law, influence trafficking to remain in the institution or wanting to climb without any merit is avoided.

Summary opinion of the Committee:

Article 151 of the Constitution of the Dominican Republic provides on the independence of the Judiciary. "The judges of the Judicial Branch are independent, impartial, responsible and irremovable and are subject to the Constitution and the laws. They may not be removed, separated, suspended, transferred or retired, except for one of the established causes and with the guarantees provided by law. (1) The law shall establish the regime of responsibility and accountability of judges and officials of the Judicial Branch. Service in the Judicial Branch is incompatible with any other public or private function, except teaching. Its members shall not be eligible for any public elective office, nor may they participate in partisan political activity".

Article 4 of Law 821 of November 21, 1927, on Judicial Organization establishes that: "judicial functions are incompatible with the exercise of any other public function or employment, salaried or not; with the exception of teaching and positions arising from the Electoral Law. The public official who accepts another public office, ipso-facto resigns the judicial office he held".

Judges have clear functions established in the Constitution of the Republic, which cannot conflict with any other position or activity. Furthermore, as judges we are committed to model a sober, prudent and serene personality, taking into account that our actions are limited by the Judicial Career Law, the Judicial Organization Law and the Code of Ethics. The Constitution states that the only function compatible with that of a judge is teaching.

Summary opinion of the Committee:

Article 151 of the Constitution of the Dominican Republic provides on the independence of the Judiciary. "The judges of the Judicial Branch are independent, impartial, responsible and irremovable and are subject to the Constitution and the laws. They may not be removed, separated, suspended, transferred or retired, except for one of the established causes and with the guarantees provided by law. (1) The law shall establish the regime of responsibility and accountability of judges and officials of the Judicial Branch. Service in the Judicial Branch is incompatible with any other public or private function, except teaching. Its members shall not be eligible for any public elective office, nor may they participate in partisan political activity".

Judges should not perform or take part in activities other than those attributed to them by the Constitution and the laws, and since the laws are clear and in this regard state that they should not engage in activities outside of their duties as a Judge, the Committee does not approve this request.