The Plenary of the Chamber of Deputies The discussion of the opinion began with the minutes sent by the Senate to reform the Constitution in its articles 105 and 107 to avoid challenges to additions or changes to the Carta Magna.
You might be interested in: App delivery workers protest in San Lázaro against the regularization project
The Assembly decided to withdraw from the agenda the solemn session that was scheduled to commemorate the founding of the state of Baja California Sur.
After the presentation of the opinion by the president of the Constitutional Points Commission, Leonel Godoy (Morena), the parliamentary groups of National Action (PAN)of Citizen Movement (MC) and of Institutional Revolutionary (PRI)presented suspensive motions that were rejected by the legislative majority of Morena and its allies.
Godoy asserted that this opinion provides legal certainty and clarity to reaffirm the inadmissibility of the means of constitutional control, unconstitutionality actions, constitutional controversies and protection that aim to contravene the additions or reforms to the country’s Constitution.
“In other words, the unconstitutionality action is maintained, the constitutional controversy is maintained in the terms provided in constitutional article 105.
“There is no modification to this right of the states, the municipalities, the federation, the Powers, the parties, the parliamentary groups and the National Human Rights Commission and the Attorney General’s Office of the Republic. The constitutional controversies and the unconstitutionality action remain as they are currently in force in the Constitution,” said the Morenista.
He explained that this reform emphasizes the inadmissibility of constitutional controversies and unconstitutionality actions that aim to contest additions or reforms to the Constitution, “we emphasize this because many say that the rule of law is being dismantled. That we are attacking human rights. I want to reiterate that the amparo trial continues as it is.”
“Whoever says that the amparo trial disappears is lying. Anyone who says that human rights have lost force in matters of amparo proceedings is lying. “They totally lie,” said Godoy.
In the suspensive motion presented by the deputy Erubiel Alonso Que (PRI) It is established that this reform violates the principle of conventionality and represents a serious setback for the protection of human rights, in particular against the right to effective judicial protection.
Furthermore, it violates the legislative procedure by not complying with the regulatory deadlines established for circulating an opinion, which violates the right of free democratic deliberation.
And the urgency to approve an opinion in an extraordinary meeting of the Constitutional Points Commission was not proven.
The coordinator of the PAN, Noemi Luna Ayalamaintained, when presenting the suspensive motion, that the ruling is a direct threat to democracy and the right of citizens to access justice.
“Once again the legislative process was violated, the project was not even rolled out five days in advance; The members of the Constitutional Points Commission did not know, until 24 hours before, what the commission wanted to approve,” claimed the PAN member.
In her intervention, the vice coordinator of MC, Laura Ballesteros, stated that the ruling party wants to make a definitive takeover of the Constitution, “without any counterweight, so that abuses like those committed by Noroña, running over and violating students and our system alike Republican cannot be questioned.”
ART
You might be interested in: Minister Margarita Ríos renounces life pension; Analyzes donating it or returning it to the Treasury
Related
Interview Between Time.news Editor and Constitutional Law Expert
Time.news Editor: Welcome to the show! Today, we shed light on an important legislative development that could have profound implications for our constitution. Joining me is Dr. Maria Rodriguez, a constitutional law expert and professor at the National University. Welcome, Dr. Rodriguez!
Dr. Maria Rodriguez: Thank you for having me! It’s a pleasure to be here.
Editor: Let’s get straight into it. Recently, the Chamber of Deputies discussed amendments sent by the Senate to reform articles 105 and 107 of the Constitution. Could you explain the essence of this reform?
Dr. Rodriguez: Certainly! The proposed amendments aim to limit the challenges that can be made against changes to the Constitution. Specifically, it emphasizes the inadmissibility of constitutional controversies and unconstitutionality actions that question these amendments once they are passed.
Editor: That sounds quite significant. The leader of the Constitutional Points Commission, Leonel Godoy, mentioned that this move provides legal certainty. Do you agree with him?
Dr. Rodriguez: In some ways, yes. Legal certainty is crucial, especially in governance and law. However, it’s also important to balance that certainty with the mechanisms that allow citizens and institutions to challenge laws that may infringe upon rights or principles enshrined in the Constitution. The concern here lies in how these reforms may limit those avenues for challenged voices.
Editor: Right. There seem to be mixed reactions to this development. Some parties expressed concern, while others, particularly Morena, argue it protects the rule of law. What are your thoughts on the opposition led by the National Action Party (PAN) and the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI)?
Dr. Rodriguez: Their concerns are valid. The opposition fears that this reform could undermine the checks and balances that are vital to our democracy. When you limit the mechanisms to challenge constitutional changes, it raises questions about accountability and oversight. A healthy democracy thrives on debate and dissent.
Editor: It’s interesting that Mr. Godoy emphasized that the amparo trial, which protects individual rights, remains unaffected. Can you tell us about the significance of the amparo in this context?
Dr. Rodriguez: The amparo trial is a critical legal tool in Mexico that allows individuals to seek protection when they believe their constitutional rights have been violated. Godoy’s insistence that this remains unchanged is important because it suggests that there is still a route for individuals to protect themselves. However, the broader context of limiting constitutional challenges may still create an environment where fewer checks exist.
Editor: There’s a lot at stake here. What would you say to those who believe this reform may lead to a weakening of human rights protections in Mexico?
Dr. Rodriguez: I can understand their concerns. When constitutional rights are more difficult to challenge, it could lead to a chilling effect on the protection of those rights. As Godoy asserted, claims that human rights are being dismantled might be exaggerated, but reforming the avenues for checking governmental power certainly raises red flags and deserves close scrutiny.
Editor: As we think about the future, what implications do you foresee if these amendments are approved?
Dr. Rodriguez: If approved, we could see a shift in how constitutional law operates in Mexico. It could lead to a situation where essential changes to the Constitution can be enacted with less resistance and scrutiny. The long-term effects may erode the foundational principles that protect individual rights, especially for marginalized communities.
Editor: That makes for a compelling case. Thank you, Dr. Rodriguez, for shedding light on such an important issue. It’s essential for citizens to engage with these developments as they shape our democracy!
Dr. Rodriguez: Thank you for having me! It’s crucial to keep these discussions alive. Awareness is the first step toward meaningful change.
Editor: And thank you to our viewers for tuning in. Stay informed, and join us next time for more explorations of current events!