The Puerto Rico Supreme Court issued a decision on Dec. 2, 2025, in *Oficina de Ética Gubernamental v. Elí Díaz Atienza*, clarifying the legal status of high-ranking officials at the Puerto Rico Aqueducts and Sewers Authority and setting important precedent for government ethics enforcement.
The court held that Elí Díaz Atienza, who served as Executive Vice President of the Puerto Rico Aqueducts and Sewers Authority, is a public servant rather than a private individual for purposes of government ethics law. The decision overturned a fine imposed by the Government Ethics Office for an alleged violation of Article 4.2 of the Government Ethics Office Law.
Justice Estrella Martínez wrote the court's opinion, which addressed whether the Government Ethics Office met its burden of proving the alleged ethics violation against the high-ranking utility official through "clear, robust and convincing evidence." The court found that the ethics office failed to meet this standard of proof in its case against Díaz Atienza.
The case arose from a quasi-criminal proceeding initiated by the Government Ethics Office against Díaz Atienza in his capacity as a high-ranking official at the water authority. The Government Ethics Office alleged that Díaz Atienza violated Article 4.2(b) of the Organic Law of the Government Ethics Office of Puerto Rico, which governs conduct by public officials.
The central legal question before the court was whether officials at the Puerto Rico Aqueductos y Alcantarillados (AAA) should be classified as public servants subject to government ethics rules, or as private individuals working for what could be considered a separate entity. The court's ruling definitively places such officials within the public servant category.
This classification has significant implications for how ethics violations are prosecuted and what standards of proof apply. Public servants are subject to different legal frameworks and procedural protections compared to private individuals in ethics proceedings.
The court's analysis focused heavily on the evidentiary standard required in government ethics cases. In quasi-criminal proceedings like this one, the Government Ethics Office must prove violations through "clear, robust and convincing evidence" – a heightened standard that falls between the preponderance of evidence used in most civil cases and the beyond reasonable doubt standard in criminal cases.
The Puerto Rico Supreme Court found that the Government Ethics Office failed to meet this burden of proof in its case against Díaz Atienza. The court determined that the evidence presented was insufficient to support the alleged violation of Article 4.2 of the ethics law.
The case was numbered CC-2025-0163 and represents the court's official position on the legal status of water authority executives. The decision carries the citation 2025 TSPR 128 and will be published in volume 216 of the Puerto Rico Reports (216 DPR).
Díaz Atienza was represented by attorney Vilma L. Vega Rodríguez, while the Government Ethics Office was represented by attorneys Edgardo Rivera García, Joel Andrews Cosme Morales, and Pedro E. Ortiz Álvarez. The General Services Administration of the Government of Puerto Rico participated as amicus curiae, represented by attorneys Andrés S. Ríos Ramírez and José L. Marrero Hernández.
The participation of the General Services Administration as amicus curiae suggests broader government interest in clarifying the legal status of officials at government authorities and corporations. This participation likely reflected concerns about how the classification might affect other similar positions throughout Puerto Rico's government structure.
The decision provides important guidance for future ethics enforcement cases involving officials at government authorities, corporations, and similar entities. It establishes that high-ranking officials at the water authority are subject to public servant ethics rules rather than private sector standards.
The ruling also reinforces the importance of meeting evidentiary standards in government ethics cases. The court's emphasis on requiring "clear, robust and convincing evidence" sends a message that ethics offices must build strong cases with sufficient proof before pursuing violations against public officials.
This decision may prompt the Government Ethics Office to review its investigative and prosecutorial practices to ensure compliance with the evidentiary standards established by the Supreme Court. The ruling could also influence how other government authorities and corporations classify their executives for ethics purposes.
The case represents another chapter in ongoing efforts to define the boundaries of government ethics enforcement in Puerto Rico and establish clear standards for prosecuting alleged violations by public officials.