Pro-life groups reject including sexual orientation in the Dominican Republic Penal Code

Tension at the Constitutional Court: Pro-life groups and LGBTIQ+ collectives debate the new Penal Code

The Constitutional Court of the Dominican Republic became the stage for an intense day of legal and social debate this Wednesday. Various civil society organizations, as well as pro-life and pro-family movements, demonstrated in front of the court’s headquarters to express their firm rejection of an unconstitutionality action that seeks to include sexual orientation as a protected category against discrimination in Article 173 of the new Penal Code.

The hearing in question responds to an appeal filed by the Community of Inclusive Dominican Lesbians (COLESDOM) and Rosalba Karina Díaz Crisóstomo, who request that the court order the express incorporation of this term into the penal code.

Position of pro-life and pro-family movements

In a voluntary intervention presented before the judges, 175 citizens and various religious and social institutions argued that the Constitutional Court should not make interpretations that add categories to a criminal statute that were not originally contemplated by the legislator. Among the entities that support this position are the Archdiocese of Santo Domingo, the Dominican Council of Evangelical Unity (CODUE), the Dominican Evangelical Alliance (AEDO), the Christian Action Group, and other related organizations.

We consider the inclusion of this term unnecessary, since the Constitution itself defends every human being, every person.

For her part, Eva Piccini, another spokesperson for the movement, emphasized that their opposition does not seek to discriminate against individuals, but rather to avoid what they consider to be potential adverse effects on legal certainty and the protection of childhood. According to the legal representatives of this group, an expansive interpretation of Article 173 could violate fundamental principles such as the separation of powers, the reservation of law, and criminal typicality.

The counterpart: LGBTIQ+ collectives demand legal equality

Simultaneously, more than 30 human rights organizations and LGBTIQ+ collectives gathered in the vicinity of the court to defend the opposing position. Their central demand is that sexual orientation and gender identity be explicitly recognized in the Penal Code to guarantee equitable protection under the law.

Leonardo Sánchez, spokesperson for these collectives, argued that the ambiguity in the current wording creates uncertainty and leaves vulnerable sectors unprotected. For these groups, the inclusion of these terms is a matter of social justice and compliance with Article 39 of the Constitution, which enshrines the right to equality for all citizens.

We need laws to expressly include sexual orientation and gender identity within their rulings.

The legal process remains in the hands of the magistrates of the Constitutional Court, who must analyze the arguments of both parties to determine if the requested modification is appropriate or if the current wording of the Dominican penal code will be maintained.