Few guarantees of due process have been invoked as often and, at the same time, as poorly understood as non bis in idem. In the Dominican Republic, Article 69.5 of the Constitution enshrines this guarantee: The State may not repeat a punitive action against the same person for the same act and on the same grounds. However, far from prohibiting the concurrence of different types of proceedings, the clause operates as a closing criterion: only when the triple identity (subject, act, and basis) is verified can double jeopardy be invoked. Nevertheless, when the legal rights protected and the purposes differ, an administrative sanctioning procedure—aimed at restoring sectoral public order—and a criminal proceeding—aimed at rights of maximum intensity—can perfectly coexist, always with full respect for due process.

The Triple Identity as a Legal Barrier

Non bis in idem is a material limit on the punitive power of the State: it prohibits repeating punitive action for the same offense. To determine whether it applies, the triple identity is verified—same subject (who is punished), same act (what happened and in what period, with the same factual core), and same basis (why it is punished: protected legal right and purpose). When any of these three do not coincide, an administrative procedure aimed at correcting infringements of the regulations of a specific sector (e.g., telecommunications, customs, or competition) and restoring sectoral public order may coexist and a criminal proceeding aimed at protecting more important legal rights—such as life and personal integrity, individual liberty and security, public health, state security and public safety, the environment, and economic and financial order—and at suppressing crime. Only when the subject, the act, and the basis coincide does constitutionally prohibited double punishment occur.

The Dominican Framework and Road Coexistence

The Dominican legal system embraces this vision of coexistence. Article 69.5 of the Constitution establishes the cardinal rule, while Article 40 of Law 107-13 specifies that non bis in idem prohibits the imposition of a double penalty for the same act, subject, and basis. This prohibition does not affect the Administration's power to exercise its sanctioning authority when the basis is other than criminal.

Law 153-98 (Telecommunications), Article 111, establishes that administrative sanctions shall be applied without prejudice to the corresponding civil and criminal liabilities, confirming the autonomy of the different regimes. Similarly, Law 42-08 (Defense of Competition), Art. 61, prescribes that administrative sanctions shall be imposed "without prejudice to civil and criminal liabilities" that may arise from anti-competitive conduct.

Likewise, Law 249-17 (Securities Market), Articles 348 to 350, establishes a regime of independence between administrative sanctioning proceedings and criminal proceedings. In the customs sphere, Law 168-21 clearly distinguishes between administrative offenses (such as tax evasion) and customs crimes, with different procedures and consequences, which reiterates the principle of non-duplication when the offenses are of a different nature. In environmental matters, Law 64-00, Articles 168 and 169, establishes that civil liability and administrative sanctions apply without prejudice to criminal liability, confirming the coexistence of levels for the protection of different legal rights, whether sectoral or of maximum intensity.

The Vision of the Constitutional Court

Dominican case law has established a firm criterion: non bis in idem only applies when there is simultaneous identity of the subject, identity of the fact, and identity of the basis. The latter element is not limited to comparing normative labels, but rather to verifying whether the protective purpose and the legal right being protected are substantially the same. If they differ—for example, restoration of sectoral public order in administrative proceedings versus protection of assets of maximum intensity in criminal proceedings—there is no prohibited duplication.

In TC/0183/14, the Court ruled that disciplinary or punitive action is not contingent upon the outcome of criminal proceedings. The decisive factor is the material verification of the triple identity: if the grounds do not coincide, the Administration may continue its proceedings, coordinate actions, and impose sanctions without waiting for the criminal jurisdiction. In this way, the "chosen route" of civil action for compensation does not transfer to the sanctioning authority, which retains its autonomy provided that the same person is not punished twice for the same act and on the same grounds.

More recently, in TC/0288/22, the Court reiterated that there is no non bis in idem without triple identity and that the coexistence of channels is the rule; the prohibition of duplication is the exception. The practical consequence is clear: if there is a criminal proceeding and an administrative proceeding on the same episode, it is necessary to precisely delimit the fact and the time period, unequivocally identify the subject, compare the basis (legal rights and purpose of the reaction) and, on that basis, decide whether to proceed and impose an administrative sanction—when the grounds differ—or, on the contrary, to refrain/cease in order to avoid double punishment—when triple identity is verified. This standard ensures coordination between authorities, protects due process, and prevents the guarantee from becoming an unjustified obstacle to the effective protection of the public interest.

A Look at Comparative Law and the Criminal Procedure Code

This approach is not unique to the Dominican Republic. Comparative law confirms this view. In Spain, the Constitutional Court, in STC 177/1999 and STC 2/2003, has upheld the need for triple identity for non bis in Idem to apply, and Law 40/2015 on the Legal Regime of the Public Sector, in its Article 31, requires triple identity for the imposition of an administrative sanction to prevent the imposition of another sanction for the same act, subject, and basis. In Colombia, the Constitutional Court, in judgment C-870/02, has endorsed the compatibility of sanctioning regimes when the grounds differ, as is the case of the same act giving rise to disciplinary and criminal liability.

The Dominican Criminal Procedure Code is also key to understanding this dynamic. Article 50, which regulates the exercise of civil action, establishes the rule of electa una vía, whereby the victim can choose between exercising their right to compensation separately or jointly with criminal proceedings. This rule, as already specified by the Court in TC/0183/14, applies only to the sphere of civil compensation actions and cannot be interpreted as a limitation on the Administration's power to impose sanctions. Consequently, the possibility that the same act may give rise to an administrative sanction and, at the same time, criminal prosecution remains unaffected if the grounds for both are different. Thus, criminal procedural law does not undermine the independence of the punitive spheres, but merely regulates the remedy, leaving intact the Administration's ability to exercise its power to impose sanctions.

Conclusions

The rule for the Dominican Republic is clear: the coexistence of different types of sanctioning procedures is the norm when the legal basis of the offense differs, that is, the protected legal right and the purpose of the sanction. On the contrary, the prohibition of double punishment acts as a fundamental safeguard when the triple identity of the subject, the act, and the basis is verified. The key is not to establish ritual precedence between criminal and administrative proceedings, but rather to ensure adequate coordination and proportionality between the two, with full respect for due process. The fundamental issue is to avoid double punishment for the same offense and by virtue of the same legal right, thus guaranteeing respect for the guarantees enshrined in our Constitution.