Are there conflicts between the Rural Code of 1986 and the decrees on local authorities of 2006?

In this article, we present a brief analysis of the potential conflicts between the legal texts that define the mission of the various institutions involved in the governance of local authorities.

We will consider the last two legislative reforms in this area:

The Decree of June 26, 1986, amending the provisions of Laws I and II of the new Rural Code of 1984 and the decrees on local authorities of 2006.

The Decree of June 26, 1986 outlines the composition, organization, responsibilities, and functioning of the Administrative Councils of Rural Sections (CASER), which are the smallest administrative territorial entity of the Haitian Republic.

The precedence relationship between the decrees on local authorities in Haiti from 2006 and the Rural Code of 1986 is determined by several legal and practical factors. Here is an analysis to clarify this relationship:

1. Hierarchy of legal norms

In principle, in any legal system, the hierarchy of norms prevails. In Haiti:

• The Constitution is the supreme law.
• The laws passed by Parliament come afterwards.
• Presidential decrees or regulations come below.

The Rural Code of 1986, although adopted under a non-democratic regime, is often considered a fundamental legal basis for agricultural and rural issues. In contrast, the 2006 decrees on local authorities are part of a broader administrative reform, but as decrees, they may not have the same force as a law.

2. Scope of application

• The Rural Code of 1986 specifically addresses issues related to agriculture, rural land, natural resource management, and rural life. It establishes the rules that directly concern rural communities, agricultural operations, and land use.
• The 2006 decrees on local authorities concern the organization, management, and powers of local communities (municipalities, communal sections, etc.), emphasizing decentralization and local governance.

If a conflict arises, the specific nature of the subject (agriculture/rurality or administrative organization) will determine the applicable standard.

3. Rules of Conflict of Norms

• Principle of specialty: If one text is more specific than another for a given issue, it takes precedence. For example, for strictly agricultural or rural questions, the Rural Code of 1986 may apply as a priority.
• Principle of temporality: In the event of a direct conflict between two texts of the same level (laws or decrees), the more recent text generally takes precedence. The decrees of 2006 would then be applied over the Rural Code of 1986, unless the latter is explicitly protected by a law or the Constitution.

4. Clarifications of the 2006 decrees

The 2006 decrees introduce rules on:

• The structuring of municipalities and communal sections.
• The responsibilities and relationships between local authorities and the central state.
• The administrative and financial autonomy of local authorities.

These provisions may conflict with certain rules of the Rural Code of 1986 regarding the management of communal sections. For example, the Rural Code grants powers to CASECs and ASECs in the rural framework, but the decrees of 2006 redefine their role from a more decentralized perspective.

5. Practical application

In Haiti, the application of legal standards is often influenced by:

• Administrative practices and local traditions.
• The interpretations by local authorities and the central government.
• The absence or weakness of the mechanisms for implementing reforms.

In this context, it is common for local authorities (CASEC, ASECs, mayors) to rely on both the Rural Code and the decrees of 2006 according to local needs or priorities, sometimes at the expense of strict coherence.

In summary:

1. The Rural Code of 1986 retains its applicability in agricultural and rural areas.
2. The decrees of 2006 have primacy in matters of administrative organization of local authorities and decentralization.
3. In case of conflict, the most specific or recent standard should theoretically take precedence, but administrative practice may vary.

For a complete analysis, it would be helpful to examine the specific conflicting provisions and obtain a formal legal interpretation from the competent authorities (for example, the Ministry of the Interior and Territorial Communities or the Ministry of Agriculture).