The constitutional crisis current in the country will deepen this Tuesday, when the Supreme Court discuss the partial revocation of the judicial reform, where the center of the discussion will be whether the election of ministers and magistrates of the Electoral Courtbut discarding the choice of district judges y Circuit magistrates.
Currently, eight of 11 ministers have stated his position against the judicial reform, which mandates the election by popular vote of judges, magistrates and ministers, an exercise that must be carried out in June 2025 and whose cost is expected to reach 13 billion pesos.
The president of Senate, Gerardo Fernández Noroñaassured yesterday that he will no longer ask the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation to dismiss all the protections, controversies and unconstitutionality actions that exist against the reform of the judicial power, as he requested last Thursday.
“We are not going to present anything in Court, because the next day Gonzalez Alcantara y Carrancá “He was already saying that he was going to pass it off, whatever the part, that the instruction had already finished,” said the Morenista senator.
He stated that whatever resolves the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation this Tuesday, about partially invalidating the reform of the Judiciary, for the movement of the Fourth Transformation It is irreducible, because in June 2025 there will be an election of judges, magistrates and ministers.
Otherwise the president of the Board of Directors of the Chamber of Deputies, he too morenista Sergio Gutiérrez Lunawho reported that he sent a promotion to the Supreme Court in which he reiterated that the reform of the Judiciary is in force, so the trials against it should be dismissed.
presidential stance
On the subject, the president of the Republic, Claudia Sheinbaum, stated in his conference Morning that there is “a plan”, in the face of any scenario proposed this day by the Court.
“I don’t want to get ahead of myself. Of course we have a plan that does not put anything at risk, we of course have a plan, whether they decide in favor or whether they decide against,” said the president.
He questioned “who is causing a constitutional problem? Because I don’t even want to call it a crisis, because that’s what our adversaries call it. Who is causing it? The Court, because now it turns out that the President of the Republic, They say it is causing a constitutional crisis.”
“The minister Juan Luis González Alcántara He says: “We want a negotiation.” Who do you want a negotiation with? With the Chairwoman? If the only thing the President does is publish in the Official Gazette what the Constituent decides,” Sheinbaum stated.
In this regard, the retired judge, Eduardo Andrade, He spoke out against the project that will be discussed today in Court, stating that the court has no powers on the issue, he stated in an interview with 24 HORAS.
“It has the power to review that laws, treaties, regulations, any norm lower than the Constitution do not violate it. But the Constitution itself is a product of Permanent Constituent or Reformer (…) that power, what it puts in the Constitution is immovable, it cannot be judged by the SCJN, But why do we make a Constitution?
Related
Interview: The Future of Judicial Reform Amid Constitutional Crisis
Interviewer ( Time.news Editor): Good morning everyone, and thank you for joining us. Today we have an expert on constitutional law and judicial reform, Dr. Elena Martinez, with us to delve into the current crisis unfolding in our nation’s judiciary. Dr. Martinez, welcome!
Dr. Elena Martinez: Thank you for having me. It’s a pleasure to be here.
Editor: Let’s jump right in. As you know, the Supreme Court is set to discuss the partial revocation of the controversial judicial reform this Tuesday. Could you explain to our audience what the main points of this reform are and what’s at stake?
Dr. Martinez: Absolutely. The judicial reform mandates that judges, magistrates, and ministers will be elected through a popular vote. This is significant as it shifts the appointment process from a more traditional, often politically influenced selection, to a system where the public has a direct say. However, this has raised concerns about the potential politicization of the judiciary and the implications of such a massive change—especially considering it could cost up to 13 billion pesos.
Editor: That’s a substantial amount. Given that eight out of the eleven Supreme Court ministers have voiced their opposition to this reform, what is the significance of this divided stance within the Court on such a critical issue?
Dr. Martinez: The division within the Supreme Court reflects broader societal tensions regarding judicial independence and accountability. Those in opposition likely fear that popular elections could jeopardize the impartiality of the judiciary, leading to a court that is more susceptible to public opinion and political pressure. The Court’s decision this Tuesday will not only impact the reform but will also set a precedent for how laws affecting the judiciary are approached in the future.
Editor: Interesting point. The Senate president, Gerardo Fernández Noroña, has said he will no longer push for the dismissal of actions against the reform. What does this signal about political strategies moving forward?
Dr. Martinez: Noroña’s statement suggests a shift in strategy, possibly indicating that the reform is seen as a non-negotiable situation for the ruling party, who have aligned under the “Fourth Transformation” movement. It implies that regardless of the Supreme Court’s decision, there is a commitment to proceed with these reforms by 2025, which could lead to further strains between different branches of government.
Editor: The President, Claudia Sheinbaum, has mentioned having a plan regardless of what the Supreme Court decides. What sort of implications does this have for the rule of law in our country?
Dr. Martinez: This assertion indicates a preparedness to navigate the situation regardless of the judicial outcome. However, it raises concerns about the balance of power. If the executive branch moves forward with reforms despite a potential ruling against it, it could set a worrying precedent for constitutional adherence and the integrity of judicial review. The rule of law relies on all branches of government respecting one another’s roles, and any perceived disregard for a court decision might erode trust in the legal system.
Editor: Given the potential ramifications, how do you see public sentiment shaping the future of this judicial reform?
Dr. Martinez: Public sentiment is a critical factor here. If the populace largely supports the reform, it could pressure the judiciary and lawmakers to align their decisions with public will. On the other hand, if there’s significant opposition, it could fuel demands for a more independent judiciary. The interplay between public opinion and legal reform will be crucial in determining how this situation evolves, especially as we approach the elections in 2025.
Editor: It seems this situation is very fluid, and developments could change rapidly. Thank you, Dr. Martinez, for your insightful analysis.
Dr. Martinez: Thank you for having me. It’s vital to keep these discussions alive as the country navigates this critical juncture.
Editor: And to our viewers, we’ll keep you updated on this ongoing story as it unfolds. Stay tuned for more insights from experts in the coming days. Thank you for watching.