The fate of the reform Judiciary It will be resolved by the judges and they will be the ones to resolve the hundreds of amparo proceedings, unconstitutionality actions, constitutional controversies and electoral actions in this regard, stated Judge Juan José Olvera López.
In the first conference of the judges, in response to the points made in the conference by President Claudia Sheinbaum, the judge pointed out that currently the time of the judges is running out no matter how many opinions are made by the head of the Executive or the Legislative Branch. .
You might be interested in: Sheinbaum insists to the US with information about the arrest of “Mayo”
“At this precise moment the matters are in the court area, as corresponds to such an important reform process, understand then that the position of the Presidency of the Republic, the position that the legislators have, is a legitimate position for them. , but they are not the judges, it is not theirs to have the last word, it is up to the judges,” said the magistrate.
He explained that even Article 61 of the Amparo Law, which has been used as an argument for the inadmissibility of amparos against reforms to the Constitution, effectively says that, but he argued against it that it is a secondary article and is a product of the reform of that law in 2013 and therefore “among other implications there is still no definitive jurisprudence that establishes that this is an insurmountable rule.”
“That article 61 is being questioned in these trials, and these amparo trials say: ‘we promote an amparo trial and judge, we tell you, that article 61 that closes the door to me is also unconstitutional,” this causes the judges They open the door and will rule on whether that article is constitutional or not. “We cannot assume that it cannot be done, because that is the subject of the debate in these trials,” said the magistrate.
At the conference, an intervention was presented by the UNAM academic, Jaime Cárdenas Gracias, who advised the Labor Party, and considered that the existence of the aforementioned article did not prevent the origin of the protection against constitutional reforms.
“The position that the Presidency of the Republic has, the position that the legislators have is a legitimate position, but on the one hand, they are not the judges, they do not have the last word, it is up to the judges and we must Give time to the judicial processes so that they are pronounced in accordance with the challenges made by citizens in general, as is happening.
You might be interested in: Sheinbaum asks not to speculate on the murder of Father Marcelo Pérez
“We understand the concern they have, they consider that their work is impeccable, now they should have the confidence that this work passes through the review of the amparo trials and the controversies and the actions and the electoral trials,” said the magistrate. .
He returned to the statement from the legislative majority of San Lázaro in which it is stated that the Constitution is never contradictory with itself, but, he said, the changes they approved to the Magna Carta, recognized by themselves, have many inconsistencies.
Just to mention, one, Olvera López continued, in one provision it says that the presidency of the Court will last two years in office, two articles later say that it will last four years.
“It is normal for someone who is a party to a trial to have a position, it is legitimate, but it must also be understood that it is a party position. It is not the last word, the last word is always in the courts in a State of Law and this is that moment,” he explained.
He called on the ruling party not to be worried because if they are sure that their reform is impeccable, they should rest assured that it will surely be endorsed in the courts.
ART