- Ruling Reaffirms State Authority and Dismisses Due Process Violations
DMK Abogados has assisted the Corporación Aeroportuaria del Este (CAE) for the past five years, providing specialized advice in its litigation with Bávaro International Airport (AIB) and its parent company, Grupo Abrisa. They have represented CAE alongside the prestigious law firms Jiménez Peña and Valerio Jiminián Roa in a series of legal actions before public entities in the country and before the courts of the Republic. This complex case has required a thorough review of airport, aeronautical, tourism, and environmental legislation, among others, as well as of decisions originally made in favor of the aforementioned airport project. These decisions were hastily taken at the end of the previous government period (2016-2020) and during the uncertain times of the COVID-19 pandemic.
This favorable decision by the Constitutional Court upholds important principles established by the Supreme Court of Justice regarding harm within the scope of the State, private initiative in public-private projects, free enterprise, and the scope of constitutional review appeals, among others.
In a 325-page judgment that could set a definitive precedent regarding strategic infrastructure and administrative regulation, the Constitutional Court (TC) rejected the appeals filed by the Bávaro International Airport Consortium, S.A.S. (AIB) against two decisions of the Supreme Court of Justice (SCJ), which had previously dismissed their attempts to overturn administrative acts of the Dominican State.
With ruling TC/0496/25, the high court brings to a close, at the constitutional level, the most prominent legal dispute of the past five years in the national aviation sector and puts an end to the aspirations of AIB.
The decision, adopted by a qualified majority of the TC’s full bench, dismisses AIB’s claims of alleged violations of due process, the principle of judicial impartiality, and the right to defense, among other constitutional grievances. It validates the SCJ’s rulings that upheld the legality of Resolution 024/20 from the Dominican Institute of Civil Aviation (IDAC), which had declared a prior communication from the same agency—authorizing the start of the airport project in Bávaro—contrary to the public interest.
In fact, the actions aimed at halting the implementation of the AIB, which have now concluded successfully, were all initiated by the State through IDAC. The presidential decree supporting the project was repealed by President Abinader, following a Supreme Court decision that declared it illegal.
The core issue: An airport without a bidding process and backed by the Executive branch
One of the most critical elements of the ruling is the TC’s in-depth analysis—albeit for illustrative purposes only—of the project’s authorization process. In its reasoning, the court highlights that AIB’s authorization was granted in violation of jurisdictional rules and due administrative process.
The TC identified several legal flaws:
- Application submitted to an incompetent entity: AIB submitted its request to the Airport Commission, an agency with no legal authority to approve airports, instead of to IDAC.
- Improper intervention by the Executive Branch: Decree 270-20, which backed the contract between the State and AIB, did not follow the legally established procedure, as it directly designated the beneficiary company.
- Lack of a bidding process: According to the Court, the authorization to build and operate a public-use airport required a competitive process, in accordance with Law 47-20 on Public-Private Partnerships and Law 340-06 on Public Procurement, applied subsidiarily.
The Constitutional Claim: Impartiality and Public Hearing
After exhausting ordinary legal remedies without success, AIB brought the case before the Constitutional Court, focusing its appeals on the alleged lack of impartiality of judges in the Superior Administrative Court (TSA), the absence of a public hearing, and the failure to notify documents submitted by a third-party intervenor (the Citizen Alliance Foundation).
However, the TC found these claims either unfounded or procedurally inadmissible. For example, regarding the alleged lack of impartiality of the TSA judges, the TC noted that AIB did not timely file a motion for recusal, as required by the Civil Procedure Code. As for the lack of a hearing, the TC reminded that in Dominican administrative litigation, such hearings are not mandatory unless requested by the parties—something AIB failed to do.
Regarding the documents submitted by the intervening foundation, the TC emphasized that they did not contain independent claims different from those of IDAC and therefore did not pose a risk of procedural disadvantage.
A majority vote – But not with dissent
The ruling was adopted by the required majority of the full bench but included dissenting opinions from Justices Alba Luisa Beard Marcos and José Alejandro Vargas Guerrero, who argued that the Court should have addressed the merits of the case due to the fundamental rights involved.
Vargas contended that what was at stake was effective judicial oversight of norms that could permit sanctions or detentions without full guarantees. Beard Marcos expressed concern over the Court’s trend of blocking constitutional review in cases of public interest. However, neither dissent succeeded in rebutting the procedural inadmissibility cited by the majority, nor did they provide a solid alternative legal basis.
Ruling TC/0496/25 legally closes the AIB case and sets clear guidelines on the Dominican State’s role in regulating critical infrastructure like airports. According to the TC, the construction and operation of such facilities cannot proceed without a public, transparent, and legally compliant process. Nor can the Executive branch, by decree, usurp the authority of technical bodies such as IDAC, or bypass the principle of equal opportunity in strategic projects.
Source:
