The New Constitution:

[Mr. Lu]

I just received this is in email, about proposed changes to the DR Constitution. Anyone with knowledge of what's going on tell me if these changes are true or are they "smudged" to fit the goal of the poster?

Subject: CAMBIOS EN LA CONSTITUCION ANTENTAN CONTRA LOS DERECHOS DE LOS CIUDADANOS DOMINICANOS

A continuación, una lista de los atrasos que vienen con el cambio de Constitución. Estos son sólo algunos puntos tomados de las informaciones de la prensa y de Participación Ciudadana, seguro hay muchos más.

1. Se suprimen muchos derechos colectivos incluidos en el proyecto de reforma original, como la defensa del patrimonio común, el disfrute de los bienes públicos, el derecho a la paz, al desarrollo, a una administración pública honesta y transparente, al uso de los avances científicos y tecnológicos, al acceso y libre expresión del ciberespacio, entre otros.

2. Los ciudadanos/as ya no tendremos derecho a demandar la inconstitucionalidad de una ley o acto jurídico.

3. Tampoco tendremos derecho constitucional a ser compensados o indemnizados por los perjuicios o lesiones que puedan causar bienes o servicios de mala calidad.

4. Ya no será sancionado el hecho de que los funcionarios públicos proporcionen ventajas a sus asociados, familiares, allegados, amigos o relacionados.

5. Los funcionarios públicos ya no estarán obligados, como lo están ahora, a presentar su declaración jurada de bienes.

6. Se elimina la declaración de que los senadores y diputados son libres e independientes en la toma de decisiones y de que deben actuar en apego al sagrado deber de representar al pueblo que los eligió. Esto significa que ahora deberán más bien seguir las directrices de sus partidos, cuyos intereses estarán por encima de los de la ciudadanía.

7. El acceso a la información pública estará condicionado que lo que el Estado considere que es "veraz", según su conveniencia.

8. El punto más conocido: las mujeres con embarazo de alto riesgo deberán exponerse a la posibilidad de morir, pues bajo ninguna circunstancia podrán interrumpir el embarazo... estarían incurriendo en delito constitucional.

9. El presidente tendrá mayor poder para endeudar a la nación sin la aprobación del Congreso Nacional, para nombrar a todos los viceministros que quiera sin limitación alguna y para diseñar como le convenga el presupuesto nacional.

10. El poder judicial perderá independencia y estará más subordinado al ejecutivo, pues la presidencia tendrá más poder en la designación de los procuradores de las cortes de apelación y los fiscales del distrito. Esto significa que será más difícil perseguir la corrupción del poder ejecutivo.

11. La reelección indefinida no consecutiva (que fue la primera y principal motivación de este proyecto) no contribuye al surgimiento de nueve líderes ni a la sana alternancia del poder, sino que ayuda a mantener a los mismos dinosaurios por décadas. ¿Se imaginan 30 años de Hipólito y Leonel?

12. Estará prohibido demandar a un legislador sin la aprobación de la cámara a la que pertenece, sin importar el tipo de demanda que sea. Si un legislador otorga un cheque sin fondo a un particular, éste no puede demandarlo.

13. Se aumenta el número de diputados a 190 (más dinero del Estado para ellos, más puestos para repartirse en las elecciones).

14. No se podrá aceptar empleo en territorio dominicano de un gobierno extranjero sin autorización del Poder Ejecutivo. Esto afecta a los cientos de dominicanos que trabajan en embajadas de países extranjeros.

15. En el proyecto de reforma original se prohibía la reducción de las áreas protegidas, pero esto se cambió para permitirlo si las dos terceras partes las cámaras lo aprueban.

16. El Consejo de Poder Judicial podrá trasladar a los jueces cuando quiera. Este es un concepto trujillista que atenta contra el principio de inamovilidad de los jueces y que se ha prestado en el pasado a utilizar estos traslados como sanción sin juicio previo. En otras palabras, será difícil hacer justicia a las personas poderosas.

17. Diversos artículos van en contra de acuerdos internacionales de derechos humanos en materia de nacionalidad, sexualidad, libertad religiosa, etc.

18. Para cerrar con broche de oro: será mucho más difícil modificar la nueva constitución, pues los mecanismos que establece para ello son más exigentes que los actuales.

CONCLUSIÓN: Los partidos están creando las condiciones legales para una dictadura moderna. Buscan que el Estado no esté al servicio de la ciudadanía, sino al servicio de los gobernantes, que se benefician de un pueblo sumiso y explotado.

Todavía estamos a tiempo: la Suprema Corte de Justicia debe conocer el recurso de inconstitucionalidad interpuesto por Participación Ciudadana. Su sentencia puede anular la validez legal del proyecto de Constitución que se está intentando aprobar actualmente.

Contribuye a dar a conocer estos puntos para crear conciencia de lo que está pasando y construir un movimiento ciudadano de repudio a la modificación constitucional.

NO A LA DICTADURA DE LOS PARTIDOS. NO AL CAMBIO DE CONSTITUCIÓN.

INFÓRMATE!



Mr. Lu

[Lambada]

This is why I have been asking (in other threads) if there is a website which updates the changes to the 2002 Constitution as they are voted upon, in keeping with the new fashion of governmental 'transparency' .

My personal view is that there is sufficient substantive material in the email you received for you take it seriously Mr. Lu, albeit some of the phrasing could be construed as a little 'smudged'. Don't dismiss it for that reason, however.

The whole process by which recommendations for constitutional change was set up had IMHO much to do with pushing the position of vested interests & little to do with citizen participation. It has even less to do with empowering citizens. And those of us foreign legal residents who are not citizens might not even be able to publically discuss this or write about it, if certain changes are made. That has to give pause for thought as to the underlying motivation.The following was in last Monday's DR1 News:

8. Parties agree to limit citizen rights
'Dominican citizens will not be able to sue the government for violation of the Constitution. The PLD and PRD political parties agreed to remove this prerogative from the Constitution. The political parties justified the decision on the grounds that "not every citizen enjoys this right. In order to try the action on unconstitutional issues, one must necessarily have a legitimate and judicially protected interest," as reported in Diario Libre.
The party leaders also eliminated the right of citizens to avail themselves of quality assets and services that those who suffer injuries or are prejudiced by poor quality assets or services have the right to be compensated according to the law. The legislators say that this is not constitutional material.
The agreement includes the unification of the elections in the same year but on separate dates.
The President, Vice-President and the legislature will be elected on the third Sunday of May and the municipal authorities will be elected on the third Sunday of February. Moreover, it was agreed to set a minimum number of member and judges for the Central Electoral Board (JCE) and the Higher Electoral Court, in contrast to what was approved during the first reading.
The JCE will be made up of no fewer than 5 members and the Court will be made up of no fewer than three judges and two substitutes, and this is justified because "it is not convenient to set in the Constitution the number of members of the Central Electoral Board. Exceptional political circumstances could force changes it its composition." This means there is no limit on the number of the judges.
The two parties modified numeral 2 of Article 87 that condemns all forms of corruption in State bodies, establishing "that in the same way that people who give advantages to their associates, relatives, relations, friends or partners will be punished" was changed to eliminate the words, 'relations, friends or partners'.
The political parties also agreed to eliminate Article 89, number 4. This says that "the senators and deputies elected are not bound by an imperative mandate, they are free and independent to take decisions in the affairs submitted to their consideration, they will act at all times with obedience to the sacred duty of representing the people that elected them before whom they must present accounts." This was done with the observation that "it-the article-weakens the political organization that postulates the senator or deputy. Legislators should be guided by the their party directives." '

[À bientôt]

Originally Posted by Mr. Lu

Todavía estamos a tiempo: la Suprema Corte de Justicia debe conocer el recurso de inconstitucionalidad interpuesto por Participación Ciudadana. Su sentencia puede anular la validez legal del proyecto de Constitución que se está intentando aprobar actualmente.



INFÓRMATE!
[/I][/B]


Mr. Lu

The Diogenes in me considers the above wish-thinking. I'll wait and see. Pero...

[RonS]

From a non-resident foreigner and frequent visitor, a question: are the proposed constitutional 'reforms' known to, and a topic of conversation and debate, among Dominican citizens and/or foreign residents? If so, what are some of thier views?

[Lambada]

Originally Posted by À bientôt

The Diogenes in me considers the above wish-thinking. I'll wait and see. Pero...

And the lessons of history aren't all that confidence inspiring . This was Participación Ciudadana's attempt to get a ruling of unconstitutionality against Ley 73-02
Sociedad civil elevó recurso de inconstitucionalidad

and this, I believe, was the result
Consulta Sentencias SCJ.

RonS, Participación Ciudadana and Finjus have been active in challenging both the way this has been done as well as some of the content. Some of the articles on their website here:
PC señala recursos inconstitucionalidad es ejercicio de un derecho ciudadano

Vientos oportunistas sobre la Constitución

El Retroceso Constitucional

Yes it's a subject of debate among many Dominicans - see thread on Article 30 for example. I can only think of a handful of foreign residents with whom I have had discussions on the subject.

[A.Hidalgo]

Pardon for going off topic a bit, but what President Aria of Costa Rica said a few days ago may apply to the new Dominican constitution....

``I forced myself to study the Honduras constitution,'' he said. ``I don't think there is a worse constitution on the face of this earth.''

The military environment that fostered Zelaya's ouster should be no surprise in a region that will spend $60 billion this year on its militaries, even as 200 million Latin Americans live in poverty, he said.

Costa Rican leader blasts decree - Americas Conference - MiamiHerald.com

[Chip]

Originally Posted by A.Hidalgo

Pardon for going off topic a bit, but what President Aria of Costa Rica said a few days ago may apply to the new Dominican constitution....

Quote:
``I forced myself to study the Honduras constitution,'' he said. ``I don't think there is a worse constitution on the face of this earth.''

The military environment that fostered Zelaya's ouster should be no surprise in a region that will spend $60 billion this year on its militaries, even as 200 million Latin Americans live in poverty, he said.


Costa Rican leader blasts decree - Americas Conference - MiamiHerald.com

Well, fortunately for all of Chavez's proteges, namely Leonel, he has cut back his military spending tremendously, uuh not! Is this what we have to look forward to in the DR one day???

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/25/wo...s/25venez.html

[À bientôt]

Originally Posted by Chip

Well, fortunately for all of Chavez's proteges, namely Leonel, he has cut back his military spending tremendously, uuh not! Is this what we have to look forward to in the DR one day???

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/25/wo...s/25venez.html

Firstly, I'll say what typical right-wingers usually say when confronted with similar facts about the US: "Hey, they have the right to defend themselves."

Secondly, what's a man like you using the NYT as a source? You folks surely are a strange bunch: disparage the paper when it's fashionable to do so, then quote it when it fits your agenda. Yes, you can have it both ways, credibility aside.

[Chip]

Originally Posted by À bientôt

Firstly, I'll say what typical right-wingers usually say when confronted with similar facts about the US: "Hey, they have the right to defend themselves."

Right, no doubt you are party to the theory that the best defense is a good offense.

Originally Posted by À bientôt

You folks surely are a strange bunch: disparage the paper when it's fashionable to do so, then quote it when it fits your agenda. Yes, you can have it both ways, credibility aside.

You must have me confused with somebody else.

[ExtremeR]

The Supreme Court thing it's what will going to happen as those judges aren't too happy with the creation of the Tribunal Constitucional that may challenge their lead in the Justice branch. The congressman and Leonel/MVM hasn't thought about that yet, because if that happen they will have to restart all over again.