Mexico City.- A Supreme Court justice admitted two unconstitutionality actions seeking to invalidate the reform approved last June, promoted by Morena and its allies, to limit the scope of suspensions in amparo trials against laws and certain acts of authority.
Last Friday, Minister Juan Luis González Alcántara admitted the actions, promoted by opposition deputies and senators, challenging the reform to the Amparo Law.
This is the first time that the Court will review changes to this law through an action of unconstitutionality, since this figure was regulated in 1995. The admission of the claims for processing does not suspend the validity of the challenged norms.
One of the two themes of the reform was to prohibit judges from granting suspensions with general effects when a law is challenged, which is the result of several episodes in this six-year term in which reforms promoted by the government were halted, including the 2021 changes to the Electricity Industry Law.
The other aspect of the reform was to eliminate the discretionary power of judges to grant suspensions in certain matters in which, as a general rule, they should not be granted, for example, to allow the operation of casinos, or when the State intends to take advantage of or exploit assets under the direct domain of the Federation, which would prevent priority works from being stopped.
Although some appeals have been filed against this reform, in force since June 15, almost all judges have rejected them as clearly inappropriate, considering that its mere entry into force does not affect anyone, but rather specific cases of application are required in order to challenge it.
On July 24, a judge granted a provisional suspension of the appeal filed against the reform by a group of law firms and civil associations, but on August 9 she denied the definitive suspension.
The constitutional reform to the Judicial Branch proposed by the Executive, which Morena intends to approve next September, would elevate to the Magna Carta the prohibition of granting suspensions with general effects when laws are challenged, the same lock that would apply to the substantive sentences issued in said trials, that is, the rulings could only benefit the person or company that filed the appeal.
This has been the traditional rule for protection, but the Judiciary has been weakening it through interpretations, to such an extent that, in September 2023, the First Chamber of the Court ordered the repeal of the crime of abortion in the Federal Penal Code, by granting protection to a civil organization.
There is uncertainty about the course that this and other cases will take in the Court, since the judicial reform could result in the replacement of several or all of the ministers in office.
The judicial reform, as proposed, reduces the number of members of the Court from 11 to nine, but maintains the minimum of eight votes to invalidate laws challenged through this type of action, that is, the vote of two ministers would be enough to keep in force a law that is allegedly unconstitutional.
#Court #opens #trial #reform #amparo #law
