DOMINICAN REPUBLIC: Protests Surround New Constitution

By Elizabeth Eames Roebling
SANTO DOMINGO, Oct 23 (IPS) The Dominican Republic passed the 38th version
of its constitution Thursday evening, amending more than 40 articles that
drew public protests and opposition from civil society groups and many
average Dominicans.

Drafted by sitting President Leonel Fernandez and his main political
rival, Miguel Vargas, it met with little political opposition in Congress.

The last constitutional revision, in 2002, allowed a second consecutive
presidential term. The new constitution allows for unlimited re-election
of a president as long as another president serves after eight years.

Two other articles were also highly controversial – first, a ban on
abortion in all cases, including rape, incest and even to save the life of
the mother, and second, the insertion of the words "respecting the
rights of private property" in the section which states that all
beaches, rivers and water sources are part of the national heritage and
belong to the people.

Legislators said this was to protect the important tourist industry.
Protestors said it was to take away their patrimony.

Numerous protests over both were held in the major cities. One prominent
daily newspaper ran a poll which indicated that 80 percent of the
population did not support the new document, and stenciled signs declaring
"This is not my constitution" have been appearing around the
capital, Santo Domingo.

Nevertheless, on Nov. 6, the new Constitution will be law of the land.

Lorena Espinoza, one of the organisers of the protests, said recently,
"There are many sectors engaged in this protest. I am a member of the
Collective Mujer y Salud, but we have academicians, students,
women's groups, workers, citizens' groups, all joined
together here."

"This is not just about the privatisation of the beaches, this is
about all the rights that they are taking from us, the rights of women,
the collective rights of the citizens, against all the rights which are
being cut by this constitution," she said.

Other aspects of the new charter have also caused consternation. While
there is a supreme court to rule on the constitutionality of laws,
ordinary citizens are barred from bringing challenges unless they have
proper legal standing. While the free access of citizens to information
held by the state is affirmed, it is also stated that the state itself
will only release information which it deems to be true.

Citizenship rights, particularly for Haitian migrants – the subject of
ongoing international controversy – are addressed at length. The new
constitution maintains the current wording barring automatic citizenship
for those born here of parents of foreign diplomats or "in
transit" and adds the words "or those who are in this country
illegally".

However, it does extend citizenship to those who are born here who do not
have the rights of citizenship in any other nation, clearing up a matter
of statelessness for many grandchildren of Haitians. Under the Haitian
constitution, one may only claim citizenship if one's parents are
born in Haiti.

Although there was little public protest, marriage is now defined as
solely between a man and woman. This makes the Dominican Republic the only
nation in the world to ban homosexual marriage at the constitutional
level.

At the same time, many regulations and rights are now made explicit in
this constitution which were previously absent.

Administrative corruption of public officials is now a constitutional
offence. Officials are barred from holding more than one paid government
position. Rights to labour organising, strikes, public education, and
swift justice with the presumption of innocence are all now constitutional
rights.

In a roundtable discussion held by FINJUS (Fundacion Institucionalidad y
Justicia), a civic group that has studied and provided detailed input into
the reform process, Flavio Dario Espinal, a former ambassador to the
United States, reviewed the most important aspects of the new charter.

"We cannot say now whether this constitution will be progressive or
not," he cautioned. "Often the points that we think are
important now will in fact not be important in the future. And yet
something that we have not even considered now may turn out to be
exceedingly important in the future."

Espinal pointed out that this constitution was, for the first time, the
result of a consensus among the two major political parties, with the aid
of the third party. Earlier constitutions were imposed on the nation by
one leader or one party.

However, he recommended that the entire constitution be subjected to a
referendum.

That suggestion was rejected by Frank Martinez, a member of the Assembly,
who claimed that average citizens were not adequately informed or educated
to vote on the constitution and that their votes would be subject to
bribery and corruption.

Because of the collusion of the political parties, many members of the
public are sceptical that it will serve the greater good.

Julio Cesar Vargas, an instructor of political science at Intec, voiced
the suspicions shared by many.

"This constitution was made by agreement with the political parties,
with the thoughts of those who are in power, not to expand the rights or
the protection of the citizens," he said. "The constitution was
not a result of the opinion of those from below but those who already have
and wish to consolidate their power."

"They have cut back on the rights of the citizens. For example, they
have placed religion in the place of science in the regulations on
abortion. It was not discussed with all the depth needed to reflect what
the people really think," he added.