They urge the National Council of the Magistracy to conduct the evaluation process with absolute respect for the Constitution and the rule of law
Santo Domingo.– The Network of Observers for Institutionality (ROI) expressed its concern this Monday regarding the decision of four Supreme Court of Justice magistrates to decline the judicial evaluation process convened by the National Council of the Magistracy (CNM), considering that this event constitutes an institutional signal that must be analyzed and addressed to strengthen confidence in the justice system.
During a press conference, the organization recalled that the performance evaluation of the Supreme Court judges is a mechanism provided for by the Constitution to strengthen the legitimacy of the Judiciary, and therefore it must be carried out with full respect for due process, judicial independence, objectivity, transparency, and the justification of decisions.
You may be interested in: Antoliano Peralta denies pressure behind Supreme Court judges’ resignations: “That is an urban legend”
The ROI pointed out that, while it fully respects the right of each magistrate to decide on the continuity of their judicial career, it is necessary to reflect on the institutional conditions surrounding the process when judges with a long trajectory prefer to conclude their service early rather than submit to the constitutionally established judicial evaluation.
More Read
“When people who hold the highest responsibilities within the Judiciary decide to retire before being evaluated, it is appropriate to ask whether the system is creating the necessary conditions to strengthen trust in this constitutional mechanism and to incentivize the retention of judicial talent, experience, and leadership,” read Leidy Blanco, coordinator of Participación Ciudadana.
Judicial evaluation and parity
The organization especially highlighted the decision of magistrates Nancy Salcedo Fernández and María Garabito Ramírez not to participate in the evaluation process. It recalled that both are part of a Judiciary that only in December 2025 increased the number of female members of the Supreme Court of Justice to five, although that representation continues to be insufficient in the face of the constitutional mandate for balanced participation between women and men.
Likewise, he considered that magistrate Nancy Salcedo Fernández represented a historic possibility that, for the first time, a career judge would preside over the Supreme Court of Justice.
More Read
The ROI recalled that these concerns are not new. It explained that during the previous process of evaluation and designation of members of the high courts, it presented observations to the regulations, promoted objective evaluation criteria, developed an Interview Guide for applicants, and demanded greater transparency and motivation for the decisions.
He also warned that certain practices could end up discouraging the participation of judges in future evaluations.
In that sense, the organization indicated that current events make it necessary to review those warnings and reiterated that the judicial evaluation must strengthen the judicial career and trust in institutions, and never generate uncertainty about the tenure of those who have dedicated decades to the service of justice.
Transparent judicial evaluation
The Network also drew attention to the transparency of the National Council of the Magistracy. While it valued that the minutes corresponding to the appointment processes for judges of the Supreme Court of Justice and the Superior Electoral Court held in December 2025 were recently published, it considered that such publications remain insufficient because they do not allow for knowing the reasons that justified the decisions adopted nor the content of the Council’s deliberations.
“Transparency does not consist solely of publishing documents. It means allowing citizens to understand why public decisions are made and to be able to verify that they respond exclusively to constitutional, legal, and objective criteria,” they pointed out.
Finally, the ROI urged the National Council of the Magistracy to conduct the evaluation process with absolute respect for the Constitution and the rule of law, guaranteeing clear rules, objective and verifiable criteria, duly motivated decisions, equal treatment for all evaluated persons, effective citizen observation, and compliance with the constitutional mandate of parity.
More Read
The organization concluded by stating that the legitimacy of the process will depend, above all, on the trust it generates among the citizenry and its ability to strengthen judicial independence and the judicial career in the Dominican Republic.
