Supreme Court judge evaluations in Dominican Republic revive independence concerns

The Dominican Republic's Supreme Court of Justice is undergoing a contentious evaluation process for five of its judges, a procedure that has reopened long-standing debates about the National Magistracy Council's (CNM) extensive power. This discretion raises concerns about judicial independence.

The controversy intensified in 2025 when the CNM chose not to reappoint three judges after their initial seven-year terms. This marked the first time the council used this mechanism to remove magistrates, fueling criticism about the absence of clear, objective standards for assessing judicial performance.

On August 3, the CNM released its schedule for evaluating 11 Supreme Court judges whose terms concluded this year. Three judges, having completed the constitutionally allowed two seven-year terms, must be replaced. Three others, including Supreme Court President Luis Henry Molina, have opted not to seek reappointment. Consequently, only five judges, Vanessa Acosta, Samuel Arias, Anselmo Bello, Justiniano Montero, and Rafael Vásquez, will be evaluated for continued service.

Critics argue that while the CNM's Regulation 2-25 does list criteria such as productivity, decision quality, response time, legal contributions, integrity, independence, intellectual reputation, and public image, it fails to assign specific weights or minimum scores. This leaves the ultimate decision largely to the council's discretion. Deliberations from the 2025 evaluations reveal that discussions went beyond performance reports, incorporating assessments of judges' careers and personal attributes, with council members sometimes holding opposing views on the same candidate despite reviewing identical documentation. Although the CNM revised its regulations in 2025, the core issue of subjective decision-making persists due to the lack of a defined rating scale.