In Mexico, article 14 of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States (CPEUM) establishes to the letter: “No law shall be given retroactive effect to the detriment of any person (…)”. And according to the Royal Academy of Language, the word “retroactivity” means: “Extension of the application of a rule to facts and situations prior to its entry into force or to legal acts and transactions.”
What is relevant about this issue in the Mandate Revocation Consultation? Well, tomorrow, April 10, we Mexicans who have a valid voting card will be able to exercise our civic right to answer the question: “Do you agree that Andrés Manuel López Obrador, president of the United Mexican States, will be revoke the mandate due to loss of confidence or continue in the Presidency of the Republic until the end of his term?
However, legally and constitutionally, the result of this Mandate Revocation Consultation will not give us the right to decide whether or not we want the president of our country to continue.
Why? Well, the answer to this question is based on this little word, “retroactive”, since a constitutional norm is above all other provisions that are issued, including modifications to the CPEUM itself. In other words, the majority of Mexicans voted in 2018 for our president to have a six-year term. The regulations established in the CPEUM in force at the time of the election, and his inauguration as president of Mexico, oblige him to provide his services for that period, and only with the established mechanisms is the CPEUM itself, in force at that time, he could be fired.
If Mexicans, in tomorrow’s civic exercise, vote, in their majority, for the president to have his mandate revoked, it will not be valid. Simply, it is not applicable to the current president, as indicated above. An amparo would protect Andrés Manuel López Obrador in case someone wanted to remove him from office.
So, what happens if the president “loses” in the consultation and a majority percentage of Mexicans vote for NO continuity? Legally, NOTHING. We would be before the “good will” of the president to decide to abdicate or not, the position, because legally and constitutionally, a later modification or a new law cannot be applied.
We said it in the previous column. It is about Legal Security, which is the principle of law that provides certainty to the citizen; With this, you can be certain of the consequences that his actions can lead to. That is to say, it allows any citizen or company to rely on the current legal norms and be able to celebrate acts or have actions in their life or business with clarity, but most importantly: with the total certainty that no change in the legislation can affect facts already made.
#Legal #retroactivity #revocation #mandate