Dangerous occurrences – El Sol de México

The search for the vote causes political parties and candidates to make proposals that generate analysis and discussion in broad sectors of society. While this is happening, other political actors take advantage of the citizen distraction generated by electoral times to achieve dangerous objectives.

While some are still hungover from the post-debate of the presidential candidates, yesterday in Senate committees a legal reform to the amparo trial was approved in which the possibility that the Judicial Branch of the Federation (PJF) can be restricted suspend the general application of laws approved by the Legislative Branch, until the controversy is finally resolved.

The reform initiative states that “In recent years, the Supreme Court of Justice and federal jurisdictional bodies have issued criteria that are contrary to the principle of relativity that governs protection and have granted suspensions with general effects against laws issued by the Legislative Branch.” Although it recognizes that these suspensions seek to protect fundamental rights, the reform proposal maintains that these are arbitrary and discretionary.

Thus, it is maintained that laws enjoy a presumption of legitimacy and constitutionality, as they are the product of a democratic deliberative process within the Legislative Branch. Therefore, the initiative concludes, given that they can only be considered unconstitutional when this is proven, it is contrary to the separation of powers to order a law to be suspended before a final ruling is issued.

As can be seen, the proposal emanates from annoyance over the actions of the PJF in recent years. Let us remember that several laws that the Legislative Branch has issued, as well as acts of authority, particularly of the federal government, have been fought through the amparo trial on the grounds that fundamental rights are violated. In several cases, the suspension of the effects of the contested act has been ordered until the matter is definitively resolved, because it has simply been considered that there are impacts on people’s rights.

In Mexico there is discomfort over the protection of fundamental rights and the reform proposal and the actions of the Senate committees are a clear example. Although there is an express recognition in the initiative of the importance of its protection, today it is intended to limit the Judicial Branch and, in a certain sense, leave what is established in our Constitution as a simple letter of good intention.

The first article of our highest order establishes the duty of the authorities to promote, respect and broadly protect the fundamental rights of people. In fact, in every international instrument on human rights that Mexico has signed, it is recognized as an obligation of the State to guarantee access to justice and the implementation of procedures that ensure the protection of human rights and their reparation or restitution.

Hence, our legal system considers the amparo trial as a mechanism of constitutional control regarding acts of authority. That is to say, the amparo is not a trial that protects privileges, nor can its resolutions be considered as violating the principle of separation of powers. On the contrary. It is a means to avoid arbitrariness and for the PJF to review the constitutionality and legality of the act generated by any authority and, if it concludes that there is a violation of a fundamental right, it must restore it.

Furthermore, the suspensions issued by the PJF before making a definitive statement can be fought by the authorities themselves. In this case, the Legislature itself, through its legal representatives, can fight the decision through another means of legal defense. Therefore, the need to remove powers from the Judiciary is inserted into an environment of authoritarianism that is growing today more than ever in our country.

Any State that aspires to be democratic must guarantee the recognition and protection of our rights and freedoms. Therefore, any attempt that seeks a setback in this matter should alert us. Today, several civil society organizations and justice providers have detected the risk generated by this legal reform to the amparo trial.

The comprehensive delivery of justice is a right that impacts our democratic system. The reform aims to make us believe that the legislative work, because it comes from popular representatives, is pristine and, consequently, constitutional. It is enough to do an analysis of the legislative work in recent years to notice that we are very far from it and that, sadly, is not an occurrence.

Master in democracy and human rights.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *