Carlos Felipe B.Managing partner and founder
What does it approve of? decree and what is its scope
Decree No. 787-26, dated November 2, 2026 , approves in Article 1 the Code of Ethics for Artificial Intelligence in Public Services of the Dominican Republic and incorporates it as an annex. Articles 2 and 3 cover entities of the centralized and decentralized Public Administration when they design, contract, or use AI in services, functions, or administrative acts. This includes drafting assistants used by public servants when they affect their duties. To determine whether a tool is covered, its specific use is important, not merely that it bears the label of artificial intelligence; the decree focuses on public activity and does not constitute a general regulation of all private uses.
Information understandable and review human
Article 11, subparagraphs (g) and (h) , mandates that information be provided when a procedure , service , or decision affecting an individual has been supported by AI, indicating its purpose, the relevant factors, and the means to request clarification or human review. Paragraph 12 of the Code elaborates on the mechanisms for appeal and correction . If a request for public benefit receives an unfavorable response supported by an automated system , for example, the individual can request additional information and review by a responsible person. This is an illustrative application of these safeguards: the explanation must allow for understanding the process , and the intervention of AI does not eliminate the institution 's responsibility.
Evaluation before putting high-impact systems into operation
Article 7 of the decree assigns to DIGEIG the review and evaluation of Ethical and Rights Impact Assessments (EIEDs), as well as the approval of those related to high-impact systems. Section 7 of the Code requires studying the purpose, necessity, risks, alternatives, and mitigation measures before deployment. It considers systems that could significantly affect rights, public benefits, sanctioning powers, security, or the continuity of essential services to be high-impact. A tool for assessing eligibility for state aid illustrates why it is necessary to verify data, risks of exclusion, and possibilities for corrective action before using its results.
Prohibited uses and limits that must be read carefully
Section 11 of the Code of Ethics annexed to the decree prohibits the widespread use of social classification to determine access to rights or services and predictive criminal profiling based on residence, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status in violation of the guarantees specified therein. It also prohibits the mass and indiscriminate use of biometric identification in public spaces without a specific court order, a clearly defined legitimate purpose, sufficient legal basis, and independent oversight. This includes systems that autonomously recommend, determine, or execute criminal sentences, coercive measures, or deprivation of liberty without direct human intervention and full guarantees of due process. The description must maintain these conditions: it is insufficient to summarize it as a prohibition of all biometrics or any technological support.
Responsible authorities, records and continuous monitoring
Articles 4, 5, and 6 distribute functions among the Ministry of Public Administration, responsible for administrative oversight; the DIGEIG, responsible for ethical aspects and public integrity; and the OGTIC, in charge of technical support. Article 8 creates the National Council for Ethics in Artificial Intelligence as an advisory and coordinating body. Furthermore, Article 11 requires institutional system registries, identification of responsible parties, monitoring, and measures to correct biases, errors, or security flaws. These obligations allow for the monitoring of a tool throughout its operation; they do not end with its acquisition or initial authorization of use.
What does this mean for companies that provide AI to the government?
Article 2, paragraph I , obliges contracting institutions to incorporate clauses into tender documents, terms of reference, and contracts that guarantee compliance with the Code, data protection, security, auditing, traceability, and oversight. Paragraph II assigns oversight functions to the Directorate General of Public Procurement within its remit. In practice, a supplier must prepare documentation that allows verification of how its system will be used and what controls the public entity may exercise. As a contractual recommendation, it is advisable to specify responsibilities, access to records, and incident handling; these clauses must be aligned with the project and applicable regulatory requirements.
The 180-day timeframe and the systems that are already in operation
Article 14 grants 180 calendar days from publication to adapt policies, procedures, systems, and contracts, register tools, and designate responsible units and individuals. Its paragraph stipulates that operational systems classified as high-impact must undergo an Integrated System for Digital Transformation (EIED) within the timeframe established by the General Directorate of Government Ethics (DIGEIG). During the adaptation process, effective human oversight and measures to protect fundamental rights and personal data must be maintained. Therefore, the transition period should not be interpreted as authorization to operate without controls. The date of the decree's signing and the starting point of the timeframe are distinct concepts: the article uses its publication date as the reference point.
How to act if an AI-supported decision harms you
Keep the notification, the file number, the documents submitted, and any communications received. Based on the rights in Article 11, subparagraphs (g) and (h), and paragraph 12 of the Code, request that the institution clarify whether AI was involved, what factors were relevant, and how to request a human review or correct erroneous data. These are practical guidelines for documenting the case, not a single form created by the decree. If you deem it necessary to challenge the action, check the applicable appeals and deadlines with legal assistance; it should not be assumed that a request for clarification suspends these deadlines or that a review guarantees a favorable outcome.