House Judiciary committee reviews amendments to Law 54; debates 3‑day appeal window, electronic monitoring and exclusion zones

The House of Representatives' Judiciary Commission held a public hearing on Feb. 19 to review Proyecto de la C—mara No. 15, authored by Speaker Méndez Nú—ez, which proposes technical and substantive amendments to Law 54 (the law for prevention and intervention in domestic violence) and to Law 99 (the electronic monitoring program).

The bill would: update and consolidate definitions in Article 1.3; restore a prior certification role for the Office of the Procuradora de las Mujeres (OPM) related to certified legal advocates (intercesoras legales); set a three‑business‑day term for scheduling an appeal hearing (vista en alzada) after a Rule 6 no‑cause or reduced‑charge determination in certain domestic‑violence criminal matters; and change parts of Law 99 (2009) governing mandatory electronic monitoring and the statutory definition of an exclusion zone (including a proposed definition tied to a 30‑minute night driving distance).

Why it matters: The changes would affect how courts, police and prosecutors process domestic‑violence complaints, when protective orders issue automatically after a probable‑cause determination, and when electronic monitoring and exclusion zones are required as bail conditions. Witnesses said implementation depends on administrative practice, available staff and coordination among agencies.

M—nica Hern—ndez, legal adviser to the Office of Administration of the Courts, described the judiciary's existing administrative systems for specialized domestic‑violence processes and recommended caution about moving operational deadlines into statute. “Consideramos que no es necesario establecer un t—rmino para la celebraci—n de la vista en alzada por la v—aa estatutaria,” she told the committee, noting that administrative directives adopted across the judicial regions already set a three‑business‑day schedule in practice and give staff flexibility to manage evidence, witness availability and victims' needs.

Hern—ndez and Giselle Rosa Gonz—lez, director of the Judiciary's legislative division, outlined several court efforts: specialized domestic‑violence and gender‑violence dockets, a centralized Orders of Protection Operations Center (COPOP) that coordinates orders across police and courts, a COPOP mobile tool for officers, and administrative orders adopted by region to standardize scheduling and notifications for Rule 6 appeal hearings.

Madeline Berm—dez Sanabria, procuradora interina de las mujeres, supported most technical clarifications and several substantive changes but asked the legislature to preserve judicial discretion where appropriate and to back reforms with resources. The OPM favored adding animal abuse into the statutory definition of domestic violence, restoring responsibility to the OPM for certifying legal advocates, and imposing mandatory electronic monitoring as a bail condition for specified domestic‑violence offenses. “Todos aqu— queremos lo mismo, salvar vidas,” Berm—dez said, and stressed the need for consequences when administrative protocols are not followed.

On the three‑business‑day appeal window, the Judiciary and the OPM diverged in emphasis. The Judiciary noted that regional administrative orders already require a three‑day target when the prosecutor requests an appeal hearing under Rule 6, and cautioned that a statutory deadline could limit operational flexibility. The OPM expressed support for prompt scheduling but deferred to the courts and the Department of Justice on whether the timeframe should be codified, citing resource and operational constraints.

Electronic monitoring and exclusion zones drew detailed scrutiny. The bill would amend Law 99 (2009) so that, in some cases after a probable‑cause finding, the court must impose electronic monitoring as a bail condition for specified offenses. Committee witnesses warned of implementation challenges: existing criminal‑procedure rules and the current statutory text still condition mandatory monitoring on a showing of grave bodily harm in some places; the bill as drafted could create inconsistent or regressive coverage compared with recent statutes; and a proposed statutory method for calculating an exclusion zone—a 30‑minute night driving distance—may be impractical or either overly broad or insufficient in particular cases. Witnesses urged leaving the precise perimeter to judicial discretion and asked for a study and implementation guidance from the pretrial services office.

Committee members pressed for operational detail. Judiciary staff agreed to provide the commission, within 10 days, statistics the committee requested on the number of Rule 6 appearances, counts of domestic‑violence charges, numbers of appeal (alzada) hearings, the number of specialized dockets and current judicial vacancies and assignments. The OPM committed to submit suggested draft language for some technical fixes and for standardizing the definitions in Article 1.3 within five days.

Presenters and members repeatedly tied the legal changes to resource needs: more judges and courtroom support staff, expanded specialized dockets (the Judiciary said there are specialized domestic‑violence dockets in seven judicial regions and gender‑violence dockets in four), funding to extend intercesora legal coverage, and better data sharing among police, courts and victim‑service providers. The procuradora also described special emergency funding distributed after the 2021 emergency declaration and said the office can provide budgets and a breakdown of how special allocations were used; committee members requested an official OGP budget breakdown for the emergency funds assigned to domestic‑violence response.

What was not decided: The committee did not vote on the bill during the hearing. Members asked for additional written input and data and signaled they will return to the measure after reviewing the requested materials and suggested drafting language.

Follow‑up required: the Judiciary agreed to deliver specified case and staffing data within ten days; the OPM agreed to deliver draft language and technical suggestions within five days; the committee will request a detailed breakdown from the Office of Management and Budget (OGP/OGP) of the emergency funds assigned for domestic‑violence response.

The hearing included public and member remarks that ranged from technical drafting queries to testimony about victims' experiences and system gaps. Several presenters recommended creating a broader review or special commission to reexamine Law 54 comprehensively rather than continuing piecemeal amendments. The committee left the hearing open for additional memoriales and written comments.

The commission indicated it will consider the written submissions, the data the Judiciary will provide, and the OPM's proposed text before deciding next steps.