Mexico City. A collegiate court annulled the provisional suspension that a federal judge had given to the Mexican Human Rights Commission, ordering the Electoral Tribunal (TEPJF), of the judicial branch of the Federation, to appoint two magistrates to complete a plenary session of the upper house.
In an extraordinary session this Thursday, the judges of the Seventh Collegiate Court on Administrative Matters in Mexico City, Benito Arnulfo Zurita Infante, Alejandro González Bernabé and Ricardo Olvera García, argued that granting a suspension under these conditions was unacceptable. This was done by the head of the Ninth District Court in Administrative Matters, the controversial judge Rodrigo de la Peza, who was accused by the Secretary of the Interior of violating the Constitution.
Unanimously, the judges declared the complaint filed to challenge the first instance decision of the First Circuit established by the Senate inadmissible and voted in favor of rescinding the provisional suspension.
Judge González Bernabé explained that the civil association that complained had stated in its request for protection that it had a legitimate interest to challenge the omissions it referred to, and that they said affected the right to defense of democracy.
“Article 131 of the Amparo Law states that when the complainant, who requests the suspension, alleges a legitimate interest, as is the case, the judicial body will grant it only if the complainant proves imminent and irreparable damage in the event of the denial of his claim to that suspension and the social interest that justifies its granting.” In the motion appealed, de la Peza considered that there was imminent damage because the two magistrates who should have formed the upper house of the electoral tribunal had not been appointed.
However, the magistrates pointed out that there is a judicial body specialized in electoral matters and in this case it is the Superior Chamber of the Federal Electoral Court, which has the powers to resolve means of defense filed against the proposals developed by the electoral process.
He reminded that following the presidential election on July 2, various appeals and disagreements are being submitted, which are being heard before the respective instances of the Electoral Court in the High and Regional Chambers. Therefore, the TEPJF has until September 6 to declare the validity of the election.
“In such a way that no imminent damage is caused, because now on July 4, even before the demand was accepted, the chamber is not composed of the minimum six (electoral magistrates), because ultimately the presidency of the superior house at that time it will be up to you to make the corresponding proposal for the magistrates that make up the regional chambers so that the plenary session of the superior house can appoint someone. For now, any damage that is imminent and that is in some way irreparable has not been updated.
In this regard, Judge Zurita held that it is not a temporary measure because if the complainant does not obtain a favorable ruling in the amparo trial, the effect of the suspension cannot be reversed.
“Just as an example. What happens to issues resolved by the plenary session by temporarily appointed electoral magistrates? Obviously not all decisions taken can be revoked even if constitutional protection is denied.”
In the coming days, Judge Rodrigo de la Peza will determine whether to grant a definitive suspension. If he does, he will once again order the TEPJF to temporarily appoint substitute magistrates, but the decision could again be challenged.