A federal judge complained to the magistrate of the Electoral Tribunal of the Judicial Branch of the Federation (TEPJF), Felipe de la Mata Pizaña the presentation he presented at the end of August and with which he endorsed the “super majority” of Morena and its allies in the Congress of the Union.
In the auditorium of the Faculty of Law of the UNAM A judge stood up from her seat and began shouting at De la Mata Pizaña during her book presentation. The Woundsfor the presentation he presented two months ago.
“I am a federal judge, I am a lawyer and I am a writer, Mr. Magistrate. His work The Wounds You have inspired me so much that I promise you that I am going to write a novel, a historical novel of today’s Mexico and you, Mr. Felipe Mata, are going to be a protagonist, one of my historical protagonists who will appear as!the traitor of Mexican democracy!
You might be interested: Due to lack of supervision in 7 AMLO works, another 400 million pesos must be clarified
“You handed over Mexican democracy with that ruling and that presentation by the “super majority“We Mexicans don’t vote!” You will be one of the main characters and I am going to make sure that the youth who are here never forget who the traitors of the country were, that they never forget and do not believe the lies that you write in your book, that’s what I’m going to say. order. Thank you for inspiring me because there will be a few of us who will not forget the traitors. Thank you,” the judge said in a video that De la Mata Pizaña himself uploaded to his social media account. X.
The magistrate also posted the response he gave to the judge during the event and in which he asked the judge to read the Constitution and all the precedents from 2009 to today because the TEPJF He did what is in the Magna Carta.
“I think that the judge has not read my sentences, if she had approached me to talk, we could have talked about the content of the sentence, but well, I imagine that she is shouting like her, eehhh…well she has a feeling, she wants to express a feeling I regret that feeling and I share it, I myself have said that the democratic election of judges was not a good idea, but I believe that she did not know that either,” said the electoral court magistrate.
You might be interested in: PAN shows links between members of the Committee of Judges and the 4T
The presentation for which he claimed judgeand that in the video that De la Mata Pizaña uploaded you cannot hear if he identifies himself, allowed the ruling bloc of Morena, PVEM and PT to achieve a qualified majority in the Chamber of Deputies and will be three seats away from getting it in the Senate.
However, in the upper house the ruling party managed to get the only two senators who came with the representation of the coalition MR-PRI-PRD they moved to his bench and later the expanist did so Miguel Angel Yunes.
By having a qualified majority in both chambers, Morena and allies can modify the Constitution at will without having to negotiate with the opposition, with which they have approved several reforms in recent weeks, among them that of the Judicial Power that imposes the election of judges, magistrates and ministers.
Today, during the presentation of my novel Las Heridas (Espasa, Planeta) at the UNAM Law School, to which I thank the space, Judge Karina Ibarra questioned me in relation to the ruling on the formation of the Federal Chamber of Deputies .
I am a democrat and… pic.twitter.com/NYI08THOpe
— Felipe de la Mata Pisaña (@fdelamatap) October 31, 2024
DG
Related
Interview Between Time.News Editor and Electoral Law Expert
Editor: Welcome to Time.News. Today, we have the pleasure of speaking with Dr. Laura Estrada, an expert in electoral law and political systems in Mexico. Thank you for joining us, Dr. Estrada.
Dr. Estrada: Thank you for having me. It’s a pleasure to be here.
Editor: We have a rather intriguing incident to discuss that recently unfolded during a presentation by Felipe de la Mata Pizaña, a magistrate of the Electoral Tribunal. A federal judge publicly confronted him, accusing him of being a “traitor of Mexican democracy.” What’s your take on this intense public display?
Dr. Estrada: It’s not unprecedented for tensions to run high in discussions about democratic practices, especially in the context of electoral reforms and judgments. The judge’s reaction stems from deep-seated frustrations regarding the perceived erosion of democracy under current governance. Her decision to confront de la Mata Pizaña in such a dramatic way highlights how passionate individuals are about the integrity of electoral systems.
Editor: Absolutely. The judge expressed her intent to write a historical novel with de la Mata Pizaña as a central character, portraying him negatively. How does this reflect the current political climate in Mexico regarding public trust in electoral institutions?
Dr. Estrada: The artistic decision to write a historical novel about real figures from today’s political landscape serves as a form of protest and social commentary. It reflects a growing disillusionment among citizens, especially among the younger generation, with those seen as upholding or facilitating the weakening of democratic norms. This can also serve to inspire future discussions and promote awareness of these critical issues.
Editor: During the confrontation, de la Mata Pizaña responded by suggesting that the judge should review legal precedents and the Constitution. Do you think this was an effective defense?
Dr. Estrada: His response appeals to legal authority and the foundations of the judicial system. However, it may come off as somewhat dismissive, particularly in the context of the judge’s emotional appeal. While he may be correct in advocating for a constitutional basis in his rulings, engaging in a dialogue about the judges’ concerns would likely be more productive than a mere rebuttal. The public discourse surrounding electoral decisions can often benefit from empathy and open conversation.
Editor: That leads us to an essential aspect of the situation—the dialogue between judicial figures and the public. What could be done to improve communication and trust between the judiciary and the populace?
Dr. Estrada: Transparency is key. There should be efforts to communicate the rationale behind electoral decisions clearly and in accessible language. Public forums where judges can discuss their rulings and engage with citizens might help bridge the gap. Additionally, incorporating feedback mechanisms could be beneficial, allowing judges to understand public concerns better and incorporate them into their judicial considerations.
Editor: Interesting points! This incident is emblematic of larger societal issues, particularly in terms of democracy and its perception. In your view, what steps need to be taken to protect the integrity of Mexico’s democracy moving forward?
Dr. Estrada: It’s crucial to uphold the independence of the judiciary and ensure that electoral processes are free from political interference. Additionally, strengthening civic education can empower citizens to engage actively in the democratic process and hold officials accountable. Ultimately, fostering a culture of respect for democratic institutions will pave the way for a healthier political environment.
Editor: Thank you for sharing your insights, Dr. Estrada. It’s clear that public sentiment around electoral integrity is at a tipping point, and voices from within the legal system will play a crucial role in shaping the future of Mexican democracy.
Dr. Estrada: Thank you for having me, and let’s hope for constructive dialogue and progress in the near future.
Editor: We appreciate your perspective, and we’ll continue to follow this issue closely. Thank you to our audience for tuning in. Until next time!