By ESENDOM
November 26, 2025
Lea en español: Tribunal Constitucional elimina la penalización de relaciones LGBTQ+ en la Policía y las Fuerzas Armadas dominicanas
Key Points
The Constitutional Court struck down articles in the justice codes of the National Police and the Armed Forces that punished consensual same-sex relations.
Ruling TC/1225/25 concluded those provisions violated fundamental rights such as equality, privacy, and the free development of personality.
The decision stems from a direct action of unconstitutionality filed by attorneys Andersen Javiel Dirocie de León and Patricia Santana Nina.
Human-rights organizations hailed it as a historic milestone; conservative sectors and the Colegio de Abogados (Dominican Bar Association in the Dominican Republic) rejected it for allegedly “undermining” military discipline.
Though a major precedent, activists warn that institutional culture and civil legislation in the Dominican Republic still impose significant barriers on the LGBTQ+ population.
A Historic Shift in the Barracks: What the Court Decided and Why It Matters
This week, the Dominican Republic experienced one of those legal moments that redraw the country’s rights map without splashy headlines. The Constitutional Court declared unconstitutional two articles that, since the mid-20th century, criminalized same-sex relations—within the National Police and the Armed Forces. These were regulatory relics that lingered in two key state institutions even as civilian life moved on.
Until ruling TC/1225/25, those texts allowed penalties of up to two years in prison for police officers, one year for military personnel, and lesser punishments for enlisted ranks. The stated justification: “maintaining institutional discipline and morality.” In other words, the state treated an agent’s sexual orientation as a matter for courtrooms, jail, and public shaming. The Court dismantled that logic. It found no legitimate constitutional interest in turning an intimate, consensual, off-duty act into a crime. Sexual orientation belongs to inviolable personal privacy and cannot be grounds for curtailing rights.
The ruling matters for two reasons. First, it eliminates a concrete form of legal discrimination inside the armed services. Second, it reaffirms a principle of national scope: no institution can uphold rules that penalize identity under the pretext of internal discipline. This is not symbolic; it redefines “order” in a democracy. Constitutional order stands above imposed moral order.
How the Case Began: Strategic Litigation in Dominican Law
The decision arose from a direct constitutional challenge brought by attorneys Anderson Javiel Dirocie de León and Patricia Santana Nina. Their core claim: the Police and Armed Forces’ internal rules violated the Dominican Constitution and international human-rights treaties ratified by the country. They framed the case as a stress test for the State: Can a modern democracy keep criminal penalties for sexual orientation inside its most hierarchical institutions?
The Court said no—in a context where strategic litigation has become the most effective path for advancing rights when Congress does not act. In practice, the Court legitimized a human fact: there have always been LGBTQ+ police and soldiers serving, forced to do so under threat or silence.
Mixed Reactions: Rights Celebrated, Moral Alarm Raised
As with changes of this magnitude, the ruling sparked polarized reactions.
From the human-rights field, the response was relief and long-overdue justice. Local and global organizations called the decision a victory against decades of institutional stigma. The message: no one should lose a career or freedom because of an intimate part of their identity. They also stressed a practical point: punishment did not improve discipline; it produced fear, concealment, and talent loss in forces already facing serious challenges of professionalization and public trust.
On the other side, evangelical and conservative groups read the decision as a break with “traditional values.” In their view, the Court has “opened the door to immorality” in institutions they see as guardians of social order. This is unsurprising in a country where religious discourse is a constant actor in debates on gender, sexuality, and citizenship. Their objection is more cultural than legal: they fear equality erodes a notion of authority built on a single moral code.
The Colegio de Abogadoa also criticized the ruling, arguing that the Police and Armed Forces are institutions of “special subordination,” where discipline justifies additional restrictions. It is a classic argument in military systems of authoritarian lineage: whoever enters the barracks accepts surrendering parts of private life. The Court, however, drew a boundary: discipline cannot excuse the degradation of fundamental rights.
The Dominican Case in a Caribbean–Latin American Lens: Legal Advance on Lagging Ground
Across Latin America, several countries have removed similar rules criminalizing same-sex relations in the armed forces. The Dominican ruling fits that trend. In the Caribbean, especially the Anglophone sphere, colonial-era laws still penalize consensual same-sex acts among adults. That gives this decision regional weight: it places the Dominican Republic on the progressive side of the Caribbean balance, even if the country remains short of equality standards common in much of South America.
It also exposes a paradox: while the country had moved past direct criminalization in civilian life, it kept two enclaves of legal homophobia inside hyper-masculinized state institutions. This shows how discrimination survives where hierarchy, secrecy, and the narrative of “internal morality” act as barriers to change.
What Changes in Practice—and What Does Not?
The legal shift is straightforward: no police officer or soldier can be criminally or disciplinarily prosecuted for a consensual same-sex relationship. That includes off-duty conduct that could previously be punished. From now on, sexual orientation ceases to be a regulatory “offense.”
This does not mean the absence of rules. The Police and Armed Forces retain general conduct codes for the workplace: romantic relationships on-site, chain of command, harassment, misuse of authority. Those standards apply equally. The difference: there will no longer be a double standard where a heterosexual act goes unpunished and a homosexual one does not.
Even so, activists and observers highlight the real challenge: implementation and cultural change. A ruling deletes articles, but it does not automatically erase prejudice in day-to-day treatment, promotion pathways, or the psychological safety of those who serve. Life in the barracks will depend on whether commands adapt protocols, whether the Defense Ministry and Police formally update their codes, and whether there is political will to stop informal harassment.
The Bigger Picture: Pending Rights and the Weight of Stigma
TC/1225/25 is a major advance, but it arrives in a country with unfinished LGBTQ+ rights. There is no legal recognition of marriage equality or civil unions. A comprehensive anti-discrimination law is lacking. Trans people still face serious legal hurdles to identity recognition. Outside Santo Domingo and a few urban hubs, social stigma remains harsh, routine, and sometimes violent.
This reality explains why change is coming first from the courts rather than Congress. The Constitutional Court has often been a driver of legal modernization when party politics fail to reach consensus. The ruling raises further questions. If the right to serve without discrimination based on sexual orientation is recognized, how far can the State maintain inequalities in other public spheres? That question will linger—and likely not for long.
Ultimately, the decision is a test of democratic maturity. The Dominican Republic is not “importing foreign values,” as some claim; it is applying its own constitutional principles of dignity and equality. And it does so in a setting where the state has historically used morality to control bodies. The ruling says the opposite: morality does not stand above the person. In a country where citizenship has so often been filtered through prejudice, that message is of its time.
⸻⸻
Related
#Justice for Ney; an Unsolved Crime
#Justicia para Ney; su crimen todavia está impune
15 artistas dominicanos del Top 25 de ESENDOM que debes conocer: La Fiera Típica
La policía arremete en contra de protesta pacífica
Represión policial en República Dominicana
Destitución de Rafael Guzmán Fermín: Un Clavo Saca otro Clavo
Periodista dominicano Marino Zapete acusa al jefe de la policía de planificar su asesinato
Imágenes del rechazo de la comunidad LGBTQ a la homofobia institucional
Imágenes de la marcha en contra de la violencia machista en R. Dominicana
Imágenes de la Marcha de las Mariposas en contra de la violencia machista
Maribel Núñez habla de la lucha por los derechos reproductivos de la mujer en República Dominicana
Open Letter From a Dominican LGBTQ Activist to Council Member Ydanis Rodríguez
Another March against Patriarchal Violence in the Dominican Republic