To view the actual orginal law for 74-25 in Spanish, you can click here: Ley 74-25
To view the law is related to all articles 192, 208-211 and 310 in English, click here: Articles Law
The Case: Somos Pueblo v. Organic Law 74-25
On June 30, 2026, the digital platform Somos Pueblo Media made a move that matters. The organization, represented by journalists and activists Ricardo Augusto Ripoll García and Eduardo Daniel Sánchez Tolentino, filed a direct action of unconstitutionality before the Constitutional Court. Their target was specific: Articles 192, 208, 209, 210, 211, and 310 of Organic Law 74-25, the Dominican Republic's new Penal Code.
The timing is urgent. Law 74-25 is set to take effect on August 3, 2026, replacing a penal code that has been in force since 1884. This is a historic modernization. The new code addresses real crimes that the old code could not: femicide, cyberbullying, contract killing, deepfakes used for extortion, organized crime, and dozens of other offenses appropriate to the 21st century. The Dominican Republic needed this update.
But Somos Pueblo's lawyers, Pedro Virginio Balbuena and Francisco Alejandro Aristy, identified a different problem embedded inside this modernization. Six articles in the new code criminalize speech in ways that violate the Dominican Constitution and the American Convention on Human Rights that the Dominican Republic has signed.
The challenge is not theoretical. These articles will go into effect in just over one month. They will be used. They will constrain journalism. They will chill investigation. They will change what Dominicans can safely say.
The Problem: Six Articles That Criminalize Speech
Article 208: Defamation
Article 208 establishes two to five years of imprisonment and fines for defamation. Defamation is defined as harming the reputation of another person through false statements. This is one of the aspects most questioned in the new code, and for good reason.
Two to five years is a severe penalty for words. To put it in direct perspective: according to Somos Pueblo's lawyers, this is longer than penalties for crimes of far greater social impact within the same code. Negligent homicide carries a maximum of three years. Sexual harassment is punished with up to two years. Breach of trust and basic robbery carry two to three years respectively. Tax fraud is up to two years.
A false statement harms reputation. But under Law 74-25, a false statement that damages someone's reputation receives harsher criminal penalty than killing someone through negligence. This is not proportional. This is not reasonable. This is the foundation of Somos Pueblo's constitutional argument.
On the surface, criminal defamation might seem to protect reputation. But it protects it by threatening journalists and activists with prison. When a journalist reports on government corruption, officials can call it defamation and file charges. When an activist organizes public criticism of policy, those in power can prosecute for defamation. The threat exists whether charges succeed or not.
Article 209: Defamation as Extortion
Article 209 covers defamatory extortion, raising the sentence to five to ten years, and increasing penalties further if two or more people act together. This makes defamation a more serious crime than most violent offenses.
The distinction seems logical: using false statements to extort money is worse than simply making false statements. But the language creates ambiguity. If a journalist publishes a story about government corruption and then asks for an interview with the official, does that become extortion through defamatory statements? If an activist threatens to publicize financial misconduct unless the person changes behavior, has that person committed Article 209 crimes?
International courts have consistently ruled that defamation should not be criminalized at all, precisely because the boundaries become political tools. Somos Pueblo's lawyers cited the Kimel case from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which interpreted the American Convention that the Dominican Republic has signed. The inter-American court found that criminal defamation statutes are incompatible with freedom of expression because they deter the very speech the Convention protects. The court has recommended that member states replace criminal penalties with civil remedies.
Article 210: Insult
Article 210 criminalizes insult. Insult means causing someone offense through disrespectful words. The problem is immediate: what counts as disrespectful? Who decides? In a country where government critics face prosecution, the answer becomes whoever controls the prosecutor's office.
A government official who is insulted can file charges. An activist who speaks disrespectfully about policy can be prosecuted. A newspaper that publishes a column critical of a judge is publishing insults. None of these involves false statements. All of them involve speech that someone found offensive.
Democratic societies cannot function if insult becomes a criminal matter. The reason is that power differentials are built in. A wealthy person can absorb an insult. A government official can absorb criticism. An ordinary citizen cannot afford to face criminal prosecution for offense. When insult is criminal, only the powerful can afford to speak freely.
Article 211: Additional Provisions on Honor Crimes
Article 211 extends the framework further, creating additional protections for personal honor that operate through criminal law. The pattern continues: criminal penalties for speech about reputation, honor, and respect.
Article 310: Disrespect Toward Public Officials
Article 310 creates a separate crime: disrespect toward public officials or public servants. This is perhaps the most dangerous of all six articles because it explicitly criminalizes speech based on the status of the person being spoken about. Speaking disrespectfully about a private citizen is one issue. Speaking disrespectfully about someone with government power is another, and Article 310 makes the latter a distinct crime.
This is how authoritarian governments silence opposition. They say you can speak freely about anyone, but speaking disrespectfully about officials is a crime. Then they charge anyone who criticizes policy with being disrespectful toward officials. The power differential is enormous. An official who feels disrespected has government resources to prosecute. An ordinary Dominican citizen who dares speak disrespectfully has no equivalent power.
Article 192: Offenses Against Honor
Article 192 establishes the framework for offenses against personal honor. It sets the stage for the other articles by creating a category of speech that is criminal rather than civil.
Why This Matters: The Chilling Effect
You cannot see the harm of these articles by reading the text alone. You see it in behavior.
When a law makes something a crime, people stop doing it. Journalists avoid stories. Activists avoid organizing. Citizens avoid speaking. This is true even when they would win if prosecuted, because facing prosecution carries cost: legal fees, time, psychological burden, risk of conviction. People rationally avoid these costs.
This is what constitutional lawyers call the chilling effect. A law does not need to be enforced frequently to work. It needs to exist. The threat alone changes behavior.
In countries that use defamation laws as political weapons, you see it clearly. Journalists self-censor. Critical reporting disappears. Officials operate without scrutiny because investigation has become too dangerous. This is not because the laws are enforced against everyone. It is because people know the laws exist and that prosecutors have discretion to use them.
The Dominican Republic has a history that makes this relevant. In 2020, media organizations documented the government's handling of the pandemic. They reported on contracts, spending, and decisions. In response, government officials discussed media regulation, threatened legal action, and created an environment where journalists felt pressure. That was before these criminal provisions existed.
With Articles 192, 208, 209, 210, 211, and 310 in place, that kind of pressure becomes legal prosecution. An official can file criminal charges for defamation or disrespect. A journalist must hire a lawyer. A case proceeds. Even if the journalist wins, the case has succeeded in its real purpose: intimidate other journalists away from future investigation.
This is not theoretical. It has happened in every country that maintains criminal defamation laws. The Dominican Republic does not need to join that list.
The Constitutional Argument: What Somos Pueblo Actually Said
Somos Pueblo's lawyers made specific constitutional arguments. They are not vague calls for reform. They are precise constitutional violations documented in the filing to the Constitutional Court.
First, the lawyers argue that Articles 192, 208, 209, 210, 211, and 310 violate Article 40.15 of the Dominican Constitution, which establishes the principle of reasonableness. They are unreasonable because they criminalize speech that can be addressed entirely through civil law. If someone harms your reputation through false statements, Dominican civil law already allows you to sue for damages, demand corrections, and protect your reputation. Criminal penalties serve no additional purpose. Adding prison sentences for conduct already handled in civil court is unreasonable.
Second, the lawyers argue violation of Article 74.2 of the Constitution, which establishes the principle of proportionality. The penalties prescribed in these articles are not proportional to the severity of the offenses when compared to other crimes in the same code. Two to five years for defamation while negligent homicide carries three years is not proportional. Five to ten years for defamatory extortion while robbery carries two to three years is not proportional. When criminal penalties for speech exceed criminal penalties for violence or injury, the law fails proportionality review.
Third, the lawyers argue violation of Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights, which protects freedom of expression and which the Dominican Republic has ratified. The convention protects not just true speech but also false speech that does not cause serious harm, because the boundary between true and false is often disputed and governments can manipulate those disputes to suppress opposition. Criminal penalties for defamation violate this protection.
The International Standard: Why This Matters Beyond the Dominican Republic
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights does not make casual recommendations. When Somos Pueblo's lawyers cited the Kimel case, they were pointing to binding jurisprudence that interprets the American Convention that the Dominican Republic has ratified.
In Kimel v. Argentina, the court examined criminal defamation prosecutions and found they violated the freedom of expression protections in Article 13 of the American Convention. The court's reasoning was direct: criminal penalties for defamation deter speech because people fear prosecution. They do not need to be enforced frequently to work. The threat alone silences. This is incompatible with freedom of expression.
The court went further. It recommended that member states decriminalize defamation and replace criminal penalties with civil remedies. This is not a suggestion. It is the authoritative interpretation of a binding treaty.
Most Latin American countries have begun following this guidance. Argentina reformed its laws after the Kimel decision. Other countries have done the same. The inter-American standard is now clear: criminal defamation does not belong in democracies.
The European Court of Human Rights has reached similar conclusions. The United Nations Human Rights Committee has recommended decriminalization of defamation globally. The African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights has done the same. The global consensus among human rights bodies is overwhelming: criminal penalties for speech, including false speech, are disproportionate and dangerous.
The Dominican Republic is a member of the inter-American human rights system. The Constitutional Court has said that international human rights law binds Dominican law. This means the Kimel standard applies. This means the court is already bound by the international law that Somos Pueblo cited.
But What About False Speech?
A reasonable question emerges: if we remove criminal penalties for defamation, insult, and disrespect, what protects people from false statements that harm them?
The answer is civil law. When someone publishes false statements that damage your reputation, you can sue for damages. You can win money. You can force a retraction. These remedies work. They protect reputation without threatening freedom of expression because civil suits carry different incentives than criminal prosecution.
Civil law also has built-in protections for speakers. You can defend yourself by proving truth. You can claim opinion. You can argue the statements were made with good faith or in matter of public concern. These defenses are real and meaningful.
But there is another category that matters: false statements that cause serious harm. If someone publishes false statements that cause direct, measurable damage, should there be criminal consequences?
The answer in most democracies is no, with narrow exceptions. False statements that incite violence might be criminal. False statements that compromise national security might be criminal. False statements used specifically to extort money might be criminal. But general defamation, even harmful defamation, should be civil.
Why? Because criminal penalties give the government power to decide which speakers are telling the truth. Prosecutors become arbiters of truth. Judges must determine whether statements are true enough to avoid prosecution. In a system where government can wield this power, it becomes a tool of control.
Civil courts decide truth too. But the incentives are different. A plaintiff in a civil case wants damages, not to suppress future speech. The loser pays costs, which creates some balance. But criminal prosecution is state power, and state power over truth is dangerous.
How to Fix This: A Path Forward
The Dominican Republic has a choice. It can implement Law 74-25 with these dangerous articles intact, knowing they will chill investigation and criticism. Or it can reform these articles before August 3, 2026, and protect both reputation and free expression.
Here is how to do it:
Replace Articles 192, 208, 209, 210, 211 with Stronger Civil Defamation Law
Remove all criminal penalties for defamation, insult, and disrespect. Replace them with robust civil defamation law that allows people to sue for damages, demand corrections, and protect their reputation through the courts.
Civil law should protect genuine reputation interests. If someone publishes false statements about you, you should win a case. You should get damages. This protects reputation without creating criminal risk for speakers.
The civil law should also clarify defenses: truth is an absolute defense. Opinion is protected. Statements about matters of public concern receive heightened protection. Statements made about public figures receive heightened protection because public figures voluntarily enter public life and expose themselves to scrutiny.
This approach has worked in many countries. It protects reputation while allowing free expression to flourish.
Remove Article 310 Entirely
Article 310, which criminalizes disrespect toward public officials, should be removed entirely. There is no circumstance where criminalizing disrespect toward government officials is appropriate. This provision exists only to protect officials from criticism. It has no place in a democracy.
If an official commits a crime, criminal law handles it. If an official violates someone's rights, civil law handles it. If an official is disrespected, the official can respond through the marketplace of ideas, not through prosecution.
Keep Fraud and Extortion Crimes Intact
Articles dealing with fraud, extortion, and theft should remain criminal. These involve concrete harm and clear criminal intent. Someone who lies to steal money has committed a crime. Someone who uses false statements to coerce action has committed a crime. These are different from defamation.
The problem is that Article 209 conflates defamatory statements made in an extortionate context with general defamation. This creates the risk that any demand made alongside public criticism becomes criminal extortion. Better to have fraud and extortion crimes that are clear and separate from speech crimes.
Ensure Truth and Opinion are Protected
Any remaining speech-related criminal provisions should have clear exceptions for truth and opinion. If you are prosecuted for false statements, you should be able to prove they were true. If you are prosecuted, you should be able to show you were expressing opinion, not stating fact.
These defenses should be available at trial, not assumed. And the burden should be on the prosecution to prove falsity beyond a reasonable doubt, the highest standard in criminal law.
Clarify Public Figure and Public Interest Protections
Statements about public figures should receive heightened protection. When someone holds government power, they have access to channels to respond, to explain, to defend themselves. They have voluntarily entered public life. They should have less protection against criticism than private citizens.
Similarly, statements about matters of public interest, including government conduct, should receive heightened protection. If a journalist publishes something about government spending, about corruption, about official misconduct, those statements deserve protection even if they are wrong, because the public interest in knowing about government outweighs the interest in perfect accuracy about officials.
Create Clear Standards for What Remains Criminal
If the government insists on keeping any criminal speech provisions, the law should be specific. Not defamation generally, but knowing lies told to steal money. Not disrespect generally, but incitement to violence. Not false statements generally, but false statements about national security made with intent to endanger the nation.
The more specific the law, the less room there is for political manipulation. Vague laws invite abuse. Clear laws constrain prosecutorial power.
Why This Matters for Democracy
This is not abstract. The reason free expression matters is concrete.
When journalists cannot investigate corruption, corruption flourishes. When activists cannot organize publicly, grievances fester. When citizens cannot criticize policy, power becomes unaccountable. When speech becomes dangerous, democracy becomes hollow.
The Dominican Republic has spent more than 140 years operating under an 1884 code. It has a chance now to write something better. It should not squander that chance by importing old authoritarian methods.
A modern penal code protects safety, security, and justice. It should also protect the freedom that makes democracy possible.
The Role of the Constitutional Court
The Constitutional Court now has papers before it. The lawyers have made their arguments. The court must decide whether Articles 192, 208, 209, 210, 211, and 310 violate the Dominican Constitution.
The court should rule that they do. The reasoning is clear: disproportionate penalties for speech violate the principle of proportionality. Criminal penalties for speech that can be addressed through civil law violate reasonableness. Criminalization of disrespect toward officials violates free expression protections. And all of this conflicts with the Inter-American Convention that binds Dominican law.
The court has authority to strike down these articles or to enjoin their enforcement until they are reformed. It should use that authority to protect the freedom the Constitution guarantees.
But the court cannot do this alone. Congress should amend these articles now, before August. It should not wait for a court ruling. It should make the judgment that Somos Pueblo is right and that these articles do not belong in modern Dominican law.
Conclusion: A Better Path
The Dominican Republic is modernizing its criminal law. This is necessary and important. But modernization means more than adding new crimes. It means rethinking how we balance safety with freedom.
These six articles fail that test. They protect reputation and official dignity at the expense of freedom of expression. They impose criminal penalties where civil remedies suffice. They give government power over speech that should remain free.
The solution is clear: remove these articles or reform them radically. Replace criminal defamation with strong civil law. Eliminate the criminalization of disrespect toward officials. Protect truth, opinion, and speech about matters of public concern.
The Dominican Constitution demands this. International human rights law demands this. Democratic principle demands this.
Dominicans deserve a penal code that protects them from real crimes and protects their freedom to speak. Law 74-25 can do both. But only if these six articles are removed or reformed.
The Constitutional Court should say so. Congress should act. And democracy in the Dominican Republic should be stronger for it.
