In recent weeks there has been a lot of talk about the decree that adds the second paragraph to article 224 of the Organic Law of the Judicial Branch of the Federation, which establishes the impossibility of the authorities of the Federal Judicial Council of the Judicial Branch ( CJF) of the Federation constitute any fund or trust, as well as the impossibility of their subsisting and remaining in operation, thereby generating the extinction of those that currently operate and, as a consequence, being delivered and/or transferred to the Treasury of the Federation the resources of all the trusts held by the CJF, as well as their remainders, products and uses.
Specifically, the objective of the aforementioned decree provides for the impossibility of the CJF trusts relating to complementary and extraordinary medical support to subsist or remain in operation, for the development of infrastructure that implements constitutional reforms, complementary pensions for retirees; fund to support the administration of justice and fund for the administration of resources from sentences derived from collective actions and housing programs. Likewise, it imposes the carrying out of all those acts and processes necessary to terminate and/or extinguish them, and the total delivery of its resources to the Treasury of the Federation.
Now, in the dilemma of who or who can oppose said decree, it must be clearly understood who or who can demonstrate their interest in having a protected right. In this case, it is the public servants assigned to the jurisdictional bodies of the CJF who must appear as complainants to request constitutional protection due to the position they hold, given that the elimination of the aforementioned trusts disrupts judicial independence, administration of justice , assets, legal security and the general working conditions of the public servants of said Council, since, as established above, the objective of the trusts that are intended to be extinguished are aimed at guaranteeing various obligations under the responsibility of the Council itself, such as the implementation of constitutional reforms, complementary and extraordinary medical support, a pension fund, support for the administration of justice and others, as well as in favor of its working base.
In such a way that if the complaining party is saddened by the imminent elimination and delivery of the resources guaranteed by the trusts described above, which will ultimately affect the administration of justice and judicial independence, as well as the general working conditions, since they are guaranteeing various rights and labor benefits of public servants and retirees of the CJF, it is enough for their legitimate interest to be proven, as held by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, for the provisional suspension to be granted, in respect and guarantee of the right of access to jurisdiction, since what is intended with said measure is to have preservative and anticipatory effects to prevent the funds and resources of the trusts from being canceled and disappearing, while the constitutionality of the rules and their reasonableness are inherent of the background study.
Thus, it is necessary to point out that there is a constitutional framework that guarantees the administration of justice, division of powers and regulates the protection of social security benefits of federal public servants as a guarantee of judicial independence, since failure to do so could cause greater harm. to the social interest.
Furthermore, the extinction of the trusts would not only affect the public servants who benefited from it, but also transcends the legal sphere of other participants in society, as they will see the administration of justice and judicial independence diminished to their detriment. Therefore, society has a direct interest in the existence of judicial independence, since the rights of public servants, as already observed above, constitute prerogatives for the free exercise of the administration of justice of workers, in addition to those who operate the system. of justice, which promotes the due fulfillment of its function, avoiding bad practices that could put it at risk.
This is the Law.