Mexico City.- The Government of Guanajuato promoted a constitutional controversy to challenge the judicial reform before the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation.
The PAN Governor of Libya Dennise García presented the controversy since last September 27, but the Court notified only last Friday that the file was turned over to Minister Juan Luis González Alcántara, so that he could resolve whether it will be admitted for processing.
This is a “traditional” controversy, which has nothing to do with the one that the Plenary Court decided to begin last Thursday, to examine whether it has the power to review the reform, by which all judges in the country will be elected by popular vote. In the case of magistrates and judges of the state superior courts of justice, their election by popular vote does not necessarily have to take place in June 2025, as will be done for the federal justice system, but each entity can decide whether to leave it until June 2027. .
Since 1995, states can promote controversies such as the one in Guanajuato to challenge “the Constitutionality of the general norms, acts or omissions” of other levels of government, whether federal or municipal, that invade their sphere of powers, and in which they also violations of international human rights treaties can be alleged.
It remains to be seen, however, whether González Alcántara will admit the lawsuit, since what is being challenged is not a secondary law or some other act of authorities, but rather a reform of the federal Constitution, which is precisely the control parameter for these trials. If González Alcántara admits the claim, or if he rejects it as inadmissible, his agreement may be challenged by the affected party before the Plenary Court, through an appeal. The admission of the controversy would imply calling the federal Congress and the Executive, as well as the state Legislatures that approved the reform, published on September 15, to court so that they submit reports and argue in their defense. It is unknown if Guanajuato requested a suspension that, if granted by the investigating Minister, could lead to the reform being temporarily ineffective, but only in that state, although as a general rule the Court does not grant suspensions against laws, and never has. done against a Constitutional norm. Furthermore, if the Plenary Court were to determine that it could rule on the Constitutionality of the Constitution itself, a possible ruling in favor of Guanajuato would also have effects only for that entity.
#Guanajuato #challenges #judicial #reform #Court