Chihuahua, Chih.- The Chihuahua Bar Association (College of Lawyers) rejected the judicial reform, as well as the elimination of autonomous organizations, such as Cofece, IFT and INAI; the argument of corruption in the Judiciary has no real basis, they denounce, after demanding that “they do not lead the country into a crisis that it does not need.”
The president of the Association, Raúl Lara Flores, through a public announcement, said that it is undeniable that some of the reform proposals may have a laudable purpose, such as the right to recognize indigenous peoples and communities as subjects of public law, the pension for senior citizens starting at age 65, granting scholarships to students from poor families, free medical care, etc.
However, he points out, “the elimination of plurinominal candidacies and the reduction in the Chamber of Deputies from 500 to 300 legislators, and the Senate from 128 to 64, are highly debatable, since they undermine the right of representation of minorities, which was a democratic achievement in the country and would represent a serious setback.”
He also stressed that “we oppose the elimination of autonomous bodies, such as Cofece, IFT and INAI, since they contribute to governance, balance and counterbalance to the established powers.”
But “the most serious thing –the lawyers claim-, and which our association has decided to express its resounding rejection of, is the initiative that consists of judges, magistrates and ministers of the judicial powers being elected by means of popular vote, under the premise that its members are responsible for the decisions they adopt in front of society and represent the cultural, social and ideological plurality that makes up the nation.”
The leader of the Bar Association stressed that “the argument of corruption attributed to the Judiciary has not yet found any real basis, since given the number of judges at all levels, the complaints against them are practically reduced to nothing.”
“It is clear that the proposed changes have a common goal: to remove judges and appoint those who will submit to the dictates of the government in power, starting with the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, since the appointment process does not guarantee impartiality and, above all, the capacity of the people they intend to appoint, which would lead us to politicize justice,” he said.
Lawyers acknowledge that it is true that the method of appointing Supreme Court Ministers, provided for in Article 96 of the Constitution, simulates a balance between powers, since it comes from the decision of the President with the intervention of the Senate and does not guarantee impartiality and merit for the position.
“We can agree on the need for a new appointment procedure, but one that guarantees capacity and independence, as the objective of the reform. However, the reform seems to aim in another direction: to remove the ministers of the Supreme Court, as well as the rest of the judicial bodies of the country, district judges, magistrates of Circuit Collegiate Courts and the Electoral Tribunal of the Judicial Branch of the Federation, to finish off with the courts and tribunals of the federative entities and finally, replace them with people who are close to the government, not to impart justice.”
In this regard, they argue that the reform seeks to impose the hegemony of the government in power, under the premise of having obtained a high vote, since the proposed election method authorizes the Senate of the Republic to call for the integration of the list of candidates; the Presidency of the Republic will nominate ten people, the Legislative Branch will nominate up to five people for each Chamber and the Judicial Branch of the Federation ten more.
“The Senate will verify the candidacies and the INE will carry out the election counts. A similar process is proposed for magistrates of the Judicial Disciplinary Court, Circuit Court, District Judges, although the latter will be carried out by judicial circuit, with the powers nominated by up to two people. That is why the scheme for electing by popular vote has as a characteristic the control of the political bodies,” they maintain.
They claim that the initiative inconsistently proposes that candidates be chosen preferably from among those who have provided their services efficiently and honestly in the administration of justice or who deserve it for their honorability, competence and background in other branches of the legal profession, “but in fact, the Executive’s proposal says the opposite: appointing lawyers without experience and even through raffles, which borders on the absurd and undermines the administration of justice.”
Therefore, “as can be seen, we are faced with a reform initiative that would allow the powers – and not the citizens – to ultimately decide who can or cannot aspire to a judicial position; taking into account that it borders on the absurd and undermines the administration of justice.”
“We are faced with a reform initiative that would allow the powers – and not the citizens – to ultimately decide who can or cannot aspire to a judicial position, with the support of the majority political groups,” so in light of the work stoppage of the Judicial Branch, society in general and the lawyers’ guild in particular, “we must state that it is the right of officials to demand that the judicial career be respected, which is a system that allows the courts to improve judicial decisions; in contrast to this, the presidential initiative proposes to dismiss the organs of the Judicial Branch of the Federation and the States and thereby incur in a regrettable setback.”
Therefore, “we demand that the Presidency of the Republic and federal legislators, as well as local Congresses, reconsider the initiative to reform the Judicial Branch, as it is a regression that endangers not only legal stability, but also economic and political stability, as has been expressed by various national bodies and international organizations, because although we are a sovereign country, we cannot distance ourselves from the globalization of the world.”
#Partisan #reform #guarantee #impartiality #lawyers