Constitutional Court annuls reduction of license validity for those over 75 years old
The Constitutional Court (TC) has issued a landmark ruling that benefits elderly drivers in the Dominican Republic. Through judgment TC/0904/26, the High Court declared unconstitutional the provision that required people over 75 years of age to renew their driver’s license every two years, instead of the ordinary four-year period established for the rest of the population.
The decision, which sets a precedent in the protection of citizens’ rights, argues that imposing an additional administrative burden based exclusively on age constitutes a form of discrimination that lacks reasonable and proportional justification.
Equality before the law prevails
For the Constitutional Court, the right to equality requires that the State provide equitable legal treatment. Although the body acknowledged that age can be a factor to consider in certain contexts, it emphasized that any restriction must be strictly justified. According to the ruling, the objective of ensuring road safety is already covered by the evaluation mechanisms in place for all drivers, regardless of their age.
Assessments to determine driving fitness must be applied on an individualized basis, based on the citizen’s actual capacity and not on an arbitrary age limit that has not been contemplated by the legislator.
Constitutional Court
Arguments of the Executive Branch and position of the TC
During the process, both the Legal Consultancy of the Executive Branch and the Attorney General’s Office defended the measure under the argument that aging can bring about physical or cognitive changes that affect driving. They maintained that more frequent check-ups were a prevention tool and not a presumption of incapacity.
However, the Court was emphatic in pointing out that:
- The Executive Branch did not present sufficient elements to validate this differentiation through a decree.
- Law 63-17 on Mobility, Land Transportation, Traffic, and Road Safety does not establish 75 years as a limit to shorten the validity of the document.
- Any restriction that implies an additional burden on a right must be supported by a formal law and not by a regulatory standard.
Dissenting opinion and legal context
Although the decision to annul decree 330-26 was unanimous, Magistrate Amaury A. Reyes Torres issued a concurring opinion. While he agreed with the annulment, the judge raised nuances regarding the reasoning, insisting on the importance of implementing physical and mental fitness evaluations that are rigorous and personalized for all drivers, beyond chronological age.
With this ruling, the differentiation that had generated controversy since its implementation in May 2026 is rendered void, restoring to older adults the right to renew their license under the same terms and conditions as the rest of the citizens.
