For the minister Alberto Pérez-Dayánthe project that invalidates part of the judicial reform is to respond to a folly with another folly.
The above, during his position regarding the proposal of his peer, Juan Luis González Alcántara Carrancá, who proposes declaring unconstitutional the articles of the so-called “Plan C” related to the election of judges and magistrates, and the figure of faceless judges.
When presenting his arguments, Pérez-Dayán noted:
“To resolve in the sense proposed by the proposal would be, I say, with all due respect and exclusively in the jurisdiction of my own person, to respond to a folly, irresponsibly brought to the supreme text, with another equivalent folly.”
You may be interested: With shouts of support and applause, ministers enter plenary session
This Tuesday, the Plenary Session of the SCJN analyzes the aforementioned document, within the framework of the approval of the constitutional supremacy reform and that 8 of the 11 members of the Mexican Supreme Court presented their resignation to the Senate.
Related
Title: Understanding Mexico’s Judicial Reform: An Interview with Legal Expert Dr. Maria López
Interview by Time.news Editor, James Rodriguez
James Rodriguez: Thank you for joining us today, Dr. Maria López. With recent events unfolding around the judicial reform and “Plan C,” can you share your insights on Minister Alberto Pérez-Dayán’s remarks about responding to folly with folly?
Dr. Maria López: Thank you for having me, James. Pérez-Dayán’s comments highlight the complexity and potential absurdity that can arise within legal frameworks when different factions within the judicial sector propose drastic changes without careful consideration. His assertion suggests that introducing new reforms as a reaction to previous contentious proposals can lead to a cycle of instability.
James Rodriguez: The proposal by Juan Luis González Alcántara Carrancá aims to declare parts of “Plan C” unconstitutional, specifically concerning the election of judges and the notion of faceless judges. What are the implications of such a proposal?
Dr. Maria López: Declaring parts of the judicial reform unconstitutional could have significant implications for the integrity of the judiciary in Mexico. It raises fundamental questions about the independence of judges and the transparency of judicial processes. Faceless judges, while intended to protect identity in certain cases, could undermine public trust in the justice system. If the Supreme Court validates either side without a comprehensive approach, it may exacerbate existing tensions.
James Rodriguez: The Supreme Court of the Nation (SCJN) is set to analyze these documents amidst major resignations. How could these dynamics affect the decision-making process?
Dr. Maria López: The upcoming analysis by the SCJN occurs in a very tumultuous period, with eight of the eleven members resigning. This situation creates a power vacuum and could lead to a lack of continuity in judicial perspectives and ideologies. It can either open the door for more progressive reform or present a risk of erratic decision-making as new members may be appointed who are less experienced or have differing views on judicial integrity.
James Rodriguez: From a legal perspective, what practical advice would you give to citizens concerned about these reforms and their potential impact on justice in Mexico?
Dr. Maria López: It’s essential for citizens to stay informed and actively engage with these developments. Participating in public discussions and advocating for transparency in judicial appointments are vital. Understanding the implications of these judicial reforms encourages accountability, and citizens should feel empowered to voice their concerns through legal forums or civic organizations dedicated to preserving judicial independence.
James Rodriguez: how should observers assess the balance between reform and stability in the judiciary moving forward?
Dr. Maria López: Observers should critically analyze the motivations behind judicial reforms. It’s crucial to differentiate between genuine efforts to improve the justice system and those that may stem from political pressures. Stability in the judiciary depends on public trust, and maintaining a careful balance between necessary reforms and process integrity is vital for long-term confidence in the judicial system.
James Rodriguez: Thank you for your valuable insights, Dr. López. It’s clear that the situation around these judicial reforms in Mexico is multifaceted and requires a careful approach from all stakeholders involved.
Dr. Maria López: Thank you, James. It’s a pleasure to discuss this important topic with you.