The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) did not rule on the validity or invalidity of the content of the judicial reform when rejecting the challenges of the political parties, so the protections presented by federal judges and magistrates, as well as civil organizations, against said norm, “they will continue their course”said the minister Javier Laynez.
In interview for ‘Aristegui Live’Laynez Potisek said that even though the amparos against the judicial reform are a different means of challenging the five unconstitutionality actions that have already been dismissed, it remains to be known the impact that the addition of two paragraphs to articles 105 and 107 of the Constitution to expressly declare inadmissible any type of challenge against constitutional reform.
“Let’s put it graphically, what you do is that this challenge is dismissed, that is, you keep it or, let’s put it colloquially, you throw it away. It’s over, it’s as if there had been no challenge, but there is certainly no statement of invalidity, there isn’t one because eight votes were required, but neither of validity.”he sentenced.
In this framework, described it as erroneous that these legal changes are known as “constitutional supremacy reform” and recalled that since the human rights reform of 2011, international treaties on the subject were incorporated into the Magna Carta, which is why they are also considered part of the constitutional legal body.
The minister also warned that after the Supreme Court resolution that dismissed the first challenges against the judicial reform and the approval of the reform on “constitutional supremacy”it seems that There are no longer limits for the legislative majority of Morena and its allies to modify the Constitution.
In this sense, he warned that There is a real risk that these modifications to the Magna Carta include laws or regulations that violate human rights. and that will now be more difficult to combat or invalidate.
“Beyond the conflict with the Judiciary, that is, the judicial reform, which for me greatly damages democracy and the separation of powers, what we are seeing then is that there is no limit, there are no limits or there would not be “there is no limit so that, via constitutional modification, any change can be made to the Constitution, including when human rights are affected.”he sentenced.
He added that unlike countries such as Colombia, Peru, Belize and Germany, where it is recognized that the Court has the quality of a constitutional court and can review reforms to their constitutions that are harmful to human rights, the Supreme Court in Mexico would no longer have said power or one more stone would be imposed on the road to review laws that violate the human rights of people
“The risk, and a real risk, is not a risk, let’s say potential or eventual, but a very real risk that that reforming body, as we called it yesterday, that is, that overwhelming majority, which allows the majority party and its allies to do what let it be with the Constitution”he insisted.
Questioned about the “day after” Following the ruling of the Supreme Court that rejected the challenges, Minister Laynez warned that the election of judges and magistrates through massive lists prepared by the evaluation committees of the Executive and Legislative Branches, both dominated by Morena, They are going to destroy 30 years of efforts to provide federal judges with experience and training.
He added that justice in Mexico and the Judiciary are going to enter a process of instability and uncertainty between now and 2027, since more than 50% of federal magistrates and judges have decided not to participate in the judicial election, due to the lack of legal certainty and the disregard of their professional profiles.
In this framework, he revealed that even though the substance of the challenges against the judicial reform was not discussed and, therefore, there was no ruling on each of its questioned parts, he was prepared to invalidate the articles of the same in which An exception was made regarding the so-called “veda” electoral contemplated by the Constitution.
He explained that even though the minister’s draft sentence Juan Luis González Alcántara Carrancá validated the exception to the ban and the start of judicial elections one day after its publication, even without the secondary laws having been approved, the judicial reform violates the principles of legal certainty and the central core of the right to vote and be voted for , due to the lack of clear rules for both competitors and voters.
“How can it be an authentic election when the person who is going to vote cannot even have the information, it is a fallacy that we are going to elect the criminal judge in our circuit. They created a list system, lists where you have hundreds, if not thousands, like the First Circuit, like Mexico City, lists where it is totally irrational, totally that you ask the citizen to make a free, authentic and informed vote.he pointed out.
“The judicial career is destroyed for judges and magistrates, or is on hold, to see if they win an election.”
With information from Aristegui Noticias
Title: Navigating Legal Changes in Mexico: An Interview with Minister Javier Laynez Potisek
Time.news Editor (TNE): Welcome, Minister Javier Laynez Potisek! Thank you for joining us today. The recent Supreme Court ruling regarding the judicial reform has stirred significant discussion. Can you summarize the court’s decision and its implications for the legal landscape in Mexico?
Javier Laynez Potisek (JLP): Thank you for having me. The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation did not pass judgment on the legitimacy of the judicial reform itself. Instead, they rejected challenges from various political parties, which means that protections lodged by federal judges and civil organizations will continue moving forward. Essentially, while these challenges have been dismissed, the absence of a definitive ruling on their validity or invalidity leaves many questions unanswered.
TNE: It sounds quite complicated. You mentioned in a recent interview that this could set a troubling precedent. Could you elaborate on what you mean by that?
JLP: Certainly. The way this reform has been framed as a “constitutional supremacy reform” is misleading. Since the 2011 human rights reform, international treaties have been integrated into Mexico’s Constitution, thus forming part of our legal framework. There’s a growing concern that the current administration could exploit the power afforded by this reform to amend the Constitution without effective checks and balances, potentially leading to violations of human rights.
TNE: That introduces a real concern about legislative power. In your view, what are the risks inherent in this legislative majority’s ability to modify the Constitution?
JLP: The primary risk is that we may see legislative changes that undermine human rights protections. Unlike other nations such as Colombia or Germany, where constitutional courts can review and nullify harmful reforms, the structure in Mexico now limits such oversight. This means that the legislative majority can effectively shape the Constitution, potentially allowing for amendments that are detrimental to civil liberties and justice.
TNE: You also spoke about the potential impact on the judiciary, particularly regarding the selection of judges and magistrates. What do you foresee happening in the coming years as a result of these changes?
JLP: The reforms threaten to dismantle nearly three decades of progress made to enhance the professionalism and independence of federal judges. The move to select judges through lists prepared by committees answerable to the Executive and Legislative branches, both controlled by the Morena party, compromises the integrity of the judiciary. I foresee a period of instability and uncertainty, as disillusioned judges opt out of these elections, leading to a significant shortage of experienced magistrates.
TNE: It sounds like a tumultuous time for the justice system in Mexico. What can citizens and advocacy groups do to respond to these developments?
JLP: It is imperative for civil society to remain vigilant and actively engage in advocacy. Legal organizations and citizens must support judicial independence and uphold human rights standards through dialogue, protest, or legal means. Moreover, raising public awareness about the implications of these reforms is crucial, as informed citizens are better equipped to hold their leaders accountable.
TNE: Minister, what do you think the “day after” the Supreme Court ruling will look like? How do you see the future of the judiciary and constitutional law in Mexico?
JLP: The immediate aftermath will likely see turbulence within the judiciary due to changes in appointments and a possible loss of trust. As the election processes evolve and stagnation sets in from internal disputes, we may witness a decline in judicial effectiveness. However, I remain hopeful. History shows that barriers to justice can galvanize public and institutional pushback, prompting a revival of democratic principles and respect for human rights.
TNE: Thank you for your insights, Minister Laynez. Your expertise offers a valuable perspective on the current legal challenges facing Mexico. We appreciate your time today.
JLP: Thank you for shedding light on these important issues. It is essential that we continue these conversations to protect our democracy and the rule of law.