In the discussion about the alleged reform of the judiciary Nothing has yet been decided as has been claimed from the National Palace and as has been incessantly repeated by some legislators who have become spokesmen for the authoritarian will that seeks to politicize and subordinate justice to the will of the government and its party, through the election of judges by popular vote.
First of all, the open discussion on the scope of the clause that sets the limit to overrepresentation in the Chamber of Deputies must be resolved. It is true that there is an interpretation that has prevailed until now both in the INE and in electoral Tribunal with which the assignments of the plurinominal deputies have been made on previous occasions, which is contrary to the meaning and purpose of the electoral reform of 1996 that established this maximum margin of overrepresentation at 8%; but nothing prevents it from being rethought and evaluated in light of many of the arguments that have been put into public discussion these days. The INE and the TEPJF have changed their criteria on numerous occasions in a well-founded and justified manner, and in particular they have done so in the last year to reduce sanctions and relax prohibitions to the benefit of some political parties (notably the Brunette), so they could perfectly modify their interpretation and avoid, as has happened, that the coalitions are used to circumvent the limit that the Constitution originally imposed on over-representation, both of the parties and of the coalitions.
The above is not minor because, if what I believe is the correct interpretation of the Constitution prevails, Morena and its allies (who obtained 58.4% of the national votes cast) would fall a few votes short of reaching the two-thirds of the lower house necessary for constitutional modifications.
On the other hand, Morena and its satellites will be missing 3 votes in the Senate to achieve a qualified majority and we must not give up on the demand that the 45 opposition senators “tie themselves to the mast” and vote against Plan C (as happened two years ago when the deputies of MC, PRD, PAN and PRI —many of whom will now be members of the Senate— opposed en bloc the regressive attempt at constitutional reform in electoral matters by López Obrador, thus preventing its approval). Assuming that these legislators will yield to the pressures and blackmail of the government and endorse the intended reform is simply giving up the place without even trying to fight. From now on, the cost must be raised for those who will be the opposition legislators and remind them that the discourse that the “mandate of the polls” was to subjugate the opposition is false. Power of attorney to the interests of the majority through their election by popular vote.
That is why the forcefulness of some – the majority – of the men and women is worth celebrating. SCJN ministers In recent days, they have made clear their position in the sense of rejecting in a resounding manner both the proposal to elect judges because it places them at the mercy of the interests of the power groups (political, economic and even criminal), as well as the poisoned suggestion that the renewal of the judiciary occur gradually to preserve their experience. In this sense, the statements that Minister Piña and Ministers Aguilar, Laynez and Pérez Dayán have been making in various spaces should be particularly highlighted, warning of the consequences of the election of judges and other issues such as the attempt to prohibit the suspension of general norms in Actions of Unconstitutionality and Constitutional Controversies, or the suppression of the general effects of some Amparo sentences, both situations that could lead to a situation of serious vulnerability to human rights.
The serious threat which represents for the constitutional democracy The aim of making the judiciary a power subordinate to the will of the majority and lenient with the decisions of the political organs of the State (the Legislative and the Executive), and thus of eliminating any brake on the omnipotence of power, does not merit half measures or condescension. The survival of the rule of law and the guarantee of fundamental freedoms are at stake.
#dispute #judiciary
