During the period, the overall environment for the exercise of freedom of the press and freedom of expression remained favorable. However, several warning signs began to accumulate, particularly regarding journalists’ access to public sources, interactions with state agents, the legal framework governing freedom of expression, and the growing deterioration of the digital information ecosystem.
Several incidents involving assaults or restrictions during news coverage were reported. On May 15, Junior Marte, an RNN correspondent in Santiago, was pushed by a corrections officer at the Palace of Justice while attempting to interview a defendant who was being transferred. In late July, Gregorio del Rosario, a journalist and attorney in Puerto Plata, was assaulted and had his phone taken while recording incidents at the Palace of Justice in that province. The assault was attributed to private individuals.
In August, journalists reported being removed from the National Palace while waiting to cover a meeting of the National Council of the Judiciary. The Press Office of President Luis Abinader described the incident as a “misunderstanding” and said that no order had been issued to remove the journalists and that accredited members of the press continue to have free access. Although authorities provided this explanation, the incident highlights the need to strengthen protocols and safeguards so that journalists, camera operators, and photographers can carry out their work without interference, particularly when covering matters of public interest.
The reduction in opportunities for direct contact between President Abinader and the media has also drawn attention. Following the elimination of “La Semanal,” there was no longer a regular mechanism for interaction between the head of state and journalists, raising concerns about access to official sources and public information. In August, Government Strategy and Communications Director Félix Reyna announced that the president would resume weekly meetings with media representatives and assured that they would be held regularly.
The legal framework is another area of concern. Provisions of the Criminal Code related to public expression prompted warnings from journalists and legal experts about their potential restrictive effects on investigative journalism, reporting on matters of public interest, and criticism of public officials and others holding public responsibilities. Following the enactment of the amendments, the Executive Branch created a monitoring and public outreach commission chaired by former Constitutional Court President Milton Ray Guevara and including, among others, journalists Persio Maldonado and Aníbal de Castro, members of the IAPA.
Debate also continues over reforming the legal framework governing freedom of expression and replacing Law 6132 on Expression and Dissemination of Thought. In May 2025, the Executive Branch submitted a bill to update the legislation and incorporate, among other provisions, rules concerning digital communications and social media.
These challenges are compounded by the deterioration of the digital information ecosystem. Disinformation, sensationalist content, and deliberately harmful posts have become increasingly prevalent in public discourse and, in certain digital spaces, compete for attention and reach with content produced under professional verification standards. The expansion of digital platforms, channels, and accounts has broadened pluralism and enabled new actors to participate in public debate, many of whom engage in legitimate journalistic work. However, it has also facilitated the use of a journalistic appearance to defame, intimidate, pressure, or even blackmail citizens, businesspeople, public officials, and others.
In this context, the Constitutional Court’s case law on the continued availability of journalistic information on digital platforms is particularly significant. In judgment TC/0900/26, issued in September, the Court rejected an appeal seeking the removal of publications by Diario Libre and Google LLC from 2019 concerning a person investigated in connection with the drug-trafficking network attributed to César Emilio Peralta, known as “César el Abusador.” The Court found that the information came from official sources, was of public interest, and had not been shown to be false. It also considered that the publications reported on an investigation and did not present the claimant as guilty.
The decision is particularly relevant to the balance between freedom of the press, data protection, and the right to be forgotten. It also represents the Constitutional Court’s second precedent on the matter. In 2020, through judgment TC/0171/20, the Court had rejected a request by a former Army officer seeking to have Acento remove information concerning his dismissal from the Armed Forces over alleged links to drug trafficking.
These precedents take on greater importance amid an increase in requests to remove legitimately published information from digital archives. Preserving such content, when it concerns matters of public interest and meets journalistic standards, constitutes an important safeguard for society’s right to access historical information and prevents data protection mechanisms from being used to erase legitimate journalistic content.
