Anti‑Corruption and Integrity Outlook 2026: Dominican Republic
Table of contents
Plans are underway to develop the country’s first comprehensive national anti-corruption strategy and system. The development of the strategy is led by the General Directorate of Ethics and Government Integrity (DIGEIG). The DIGEIG also oversees both open data policy and access to public information, while the Central Electoral Board manages political finance by monitoring financial reports submitted by political parties and candidates during and outside electoral campaigns. Responsibility for control and compliance with asset declarations by public officers lies with the Court of Accounts. The National Council of the Magistracy is established as an institution who exercises direct appointments for the Supreme Court of Justice and other high courts Dominican Republic has not yet enacted lobbying regulations, and therefore, no institution is currently mandated to oversee this area.
Note: 2025 and 2020 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026).
Data on where the Dominican Republic’s integrity system is strongest and could be most improved can be found at the link below:
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026).
The Dominican Republic fulfils 0% of criteria on the strength of strategic framework, and 0% on practice, compared to the OECD average of 38% and 32%, respectively.
Since the Dominican Republic does not currently have a national anti-corruption and integrity strategy in place, it does not meet any of the criteria in this area. Efforts are underway for Dominican Republic to develop its first national anti-corruption and integrity strategy in coordination with the OECD over the course of 2025 and 2026. An OECD Integrity Review of Dominican Republic is also underway. The Review will form the basis of the country’s first national anti-corruption and public integrity strategy.
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026).
The Dominican Republic fulfils 0% of criteria on lobbying regulations, and 0% on practice, compared to the OECD average of 43% and 38%, respectively.
The Dominican Republic has no laws regulating lobbying activities and the regulatory framework does not provide for cooling-off periods for public officials or lobbyists. Moreover, no beneficial ownership registry exists that makes mandatory the public disclosure of company data to identify owners of corporations.
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026).
The Dominican Republic fulfils 78% of criteria on conflict-of-interest regulations, and 22% on practice, compared to the OECD average of 80% and 45%, respectively.
Regulations on conflict of interest in the Dominican Republic establish a list of incompatibilities for public functions and other activities through the Constitution, Law 41-08 on public service and the creation of the State Secretary for Public Administration, and Decree 523-09, which approves the Regulation of Labor Relations in Public Administration. However, while these frameworks identify incompatible roles, they do not impose specific obligations for the management or resolution of conflict-of-interest situations.
Law No.311-14 requires public officials to submit asset declarations. The Court of Accounts of the Dominican Republic, through its Office for the Evaluation and Oversight of Public Officials’ Assets, is responsible for verifying declarations. Ministers, members of Congress, and members of the Supreme Court must submit declarations upon assuming office, changing position, or when there is a change in their situation. The same obligation extends to public employees in high-risk positions, and top-tier civil servants.
Submission rates across the three branches of government are publicly available through a dedicated website. All members of parliament and most ministers submitted their interest declarations during the past six years, while the submission rate for judges was 78% for the past four years. However, there is no public information on the submission rate of top-tier civil servants and on sanctions for non-compliance. Interest declarations are verified by the Court of Accounts following a risk-based approach. However, verification rates remain low, with only 14% of the submitted declarations since 2018 reviewed.
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026).
The Dominican Republic fulfils 90% of criteria on political finance regulations, and 14% on practice, compared to the OECD average of 76% and 58%, respectively.
The Dominican Republic’s Law No.33-18 on political parties, groups and movements regulates political finance by banning anonymous donations, contributions from foreign states and enterprises, and donations from publicly owned entities. It establishes limits on private contributions and sets spending ceilings for political parties and candidates but does not regulate third-party campaign expenditures.
Candidates and parties must report campaign funding and expenses to the Central Electoral Board, the independent supervisory body on political finance. Although Law No.33-18 establishes sanctions for breaches of political finance and election campaign regulations, the Board’s online platform does not include information on investigations initiated or sanctions issued. Furthermore, the Board does not have certified auditors on its payroll. In practice, not all political parties have followed their obligation to submit annual accounts during the past five years, and information on accounts related to elections is not made publicly available. While the legal framework requires detailed reporting of campaign finances and donor identification, including online contributions, these financial reports have not been published online.
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026).
The Dominican Republic fulfils 67% of criteria on public information regulations, and 58% on practice, compared to the OECD average of 72% and 62%, respectively.
Law No.200-4 on open access to public information governs the constitutional right of access to public information in the Dominican Republic and applies to both physical and legal persons, including non-nationals. The law establishes mandatory disclosure requirements, identifies high-value datasets, and provides appeal mechanisms for refusals or inaction. Oversight of access to information and open data policy is assigned to the General Directorate of Ethics and Government Integrity, which is not an independent body as the appointment of the head of the Directorate is established by presidential decree and does not have a fixed term. Appealing against the decisions of the Directorate is not possible. In 2023, 133 inspections of compliance were conducted by the Directorate, but sanctions for non-compliance were not issued, as the body does not have the mandate to do so.
The Dominican Republic proactively publishes key integrity-related datasets, including consolidated legislation, public procurement notices, and salary information for senior civil servants. However, government session agendas are not consistently disclosed, and ministers’ agendas are not publicly available online.
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026).
The Dominican Republic fulfils 59% of criteria on judicial integrity regulations, and 40% on practice, compared to the OECD average of 66% and 45%, respectively.
The Constitution of the Dominican Republic establishes that the members of the judicial power are “independent, impartial, responsible, fixed, and are subject to the Constitution and laws”. Alongside the Constitution, Law No. 28-11 on the Judicial Power, and Law No. 327-98 on the Judicial Career make up the regulatory framework on judicial integrity. These regulations establish guaranteed tenure for judges and set objective grounds for their dismissal, which are based on a structured disciplinary regime and a sanction scale. Entrance into the judiciary career is mandated through competitive exams, managed by the National School of the Judiciary. Merit-based procedures, such as exams or structured interviews, are not required by law for ordinary promotions and Supreme Court appointments. Supreme Court members are selected and designated by the National Council of Magistracy.
The Code of Ethical Conduct of the Judiciary applies to all judges, trainees, and related officials within the judicial power of the Dominican Republic. The code provides guidance on how to act when impartiality is compromised, and Law No.327-98 obliges judges to act impartially, but the regulatory framework does not specify the circumstances and relationships that may lead to conflict-of-interest situations for judges. All judges are obliged to submit asset declarations. Data is not available on the submission rate of these declarations, nor on their verification by the Court of Accounts.
There are no regulations establishing internal reporting channels for whistleblowers in the judiciary, and protection against retaliation for whistleblowers is not guaranteed by law. There is no publicly available portal with information on whistleblowers rights.
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026).
The Dominican Republic fulfils 21% of criteria on prosecutorial integrity regulations, and 5% on practice, compared to the OECD average of 66% and 52%, respectively.
The Constitution and Law No. 133-11 on Public Prosecutor’s Office are the main regulations in the Dominican Republic establishing the integrity safeguards for the prosecutorial system. Law 133-11 sets objective grounds for the dismissal of prosecutors, based on a list of offences classified by their severity. These regulations establish that the appointment to the position of prosecutor is dependent on a competitive public examination and the completion of the National School of the Public Prosecutor’s Office (ENMP)’s training program. However, regulations do not establish merit-based procedures such as exams or interviews for promotion.
Moreover, Law 133-11 sets certain prohibitions regarding personal relationships or financial dependencies and defines the circumstances in which prosecutors should recuse themselves. However, it does not provide regulatory definitions of potential conflict-of-interest situations and relationships for prosecutors. The Disciplinary Regulations of the Public Prosecutor’s Office provide ethical standards to all prosecutors and members of the Public Prosecutor’s office. All prosecutors are obliged to submit asset declarations, but data is not available on the submission or verification rate of these declarations.
There are no regulations establishing internal reporting channels for whistleblowers in the prosecutorial system and protection against retaliation for whistleblowers is not guaranteed by law. There is no publicly available portal with information on whistleblowers rights.
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026).
The Dominican Republic fulfils 42% of criteria on disciplinary system regulations, and 0% on practice, compared to the OECD average of 66% and 22%, respectively.
In the Dominican Republic, the Law No. 41-08 on the Public Service establishes the disciplinary framework for civil servants. This regulatory framework defines what constitutes as a disciplinary offence, establishes a disciplinary procedure for public servants, and sets a range of disciplinary sanctions for each type of offence. However, Law No.41-08 does not include provisions on the presumption of innocence, the right to hearing, and the right to legal counsel for disciplinary procedures. No legal provisions exist on the right to appeal disciplinary decisions other than dismissal before a judicial body.
No central government body has issued guidelines on disciplinary procedures, and no training program is offered to staff conducting disciplinary investigations. An electronic case management system is not used to manage disciplinary cases or proceedings.
This work is published under the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Member countries of the OECD.
This document, as well as any data and map included herein, are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.
The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law.
Kosovo: This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244/99 and the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on Kosovo’s declaration of independence.
The full book is available in English: OECD (2026), Anti-Corruption and Integrity Outlook 2026: Harnessing the Integrity Advantage, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/16708b78-en.
© OECD 2026
Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
This work is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence. By using this work, you accept to be bound by the terms of this licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Attribution – you must cite the work.
Translations – you must cite the original work, identify changes to the original and add the following text: In the event of any discrepancy between the original work and the translation, only the text of the original work should be considered valid.
Adaptations – you must cite the original work and add the following text: This is an adaptation of an original work by the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed in this adaptation should not be reported as representing the official views of the OECD or of its Member countries.
Third-party material – the licence does not apply to third-party material in the work. If using such material, you are responsible for obtaining permission from the third party and for any claims of infringement.
You must not use the OECD logo, visual identity or cover image without express permission or suggest the OECD endorses your use of the work.
Any dispute arising under this licence shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) Arbitration Rules 2012. The seat of arbitration shall be Paris (France). The number of arbitrators shall be one.