Nearly a year after its implementation, a federal judge declared the judicial reform promoted by former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador unconstitutional.
On August 17, Judge Agustín Archundia Ortiz, of the Seventh District Court for Administrative Matters in the State of Jalisco, notified the ruling he had issued on July 31.
Judge Archundia Ortiz, a career judge, determined not only that Congress committed several violations of the legislative process when approving the 2024 judicial reform, but also that it exceeded its powers as the body responsible for amending the Constitution.
“The reforming power exceeded its limited authority under Article 135 of the Federal Constitution by increasing its own ‘reform’ power to acquire, by itself, the right to ‘repeal’ the Constitution with regard to the appointment through direct election of the justices of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation —and the remedies that said authority resolved— also destroying through the reform the essential characteristics of the fundamental law, specifically regarding the appointment by popular vote of judges and magistrates, contrary to the will of the Constituent Power that gave rise to it,” the ruling states.
Judge Archundia indicated that the appointment of judges through popular vote violates the principle of separation of powers by altering the balance of checks and balances designed to prevent the concentration of power and protect fundamental rights from political majorities.
“Changing the appointment of judges through suffrage infringes upon guarantees of judicial independence, since judges do not represent political or partisan interests as established by the Constituent Congress, but are subject solely to the Constitution and the law.
“By subjecting their appointment to popular vote, judges become exposed to the dynamics, pressures, and commitments inherent to political campaigns. This compromises their technical impartiality and their ability to rule according to law. Consequently, by politicizing its origin, the judiciary loses its nature as a technical oversight body, subordinating the administration of justice to the scrutiny and preferences of electoral majorities and the Executive and Legislative powers in office —from which it received support through the corresponding evaluations in the case of the latter—,” the judge warned.
He stated that the popular election of judges does not guarantee that candidates possess the knowledge and competencies required to perform judicial functions, particularly considering that López Obrador’s reform establishes minimum requirements for those seeking to run as candidates.
“Political, social commitments or agreements made with groups of potential voters are actions that compromise the impartiality and independence of those who assume office with the support of these electoral clientelism networks,” he stated.
The judge argued that the judicial reform violated the principle of progressivity of human rights contained in Article 1 of the Constitution; the right of everyone to receive justice from courts made up of qualified judges capable of issuing prompt, complete, and impartial rulings; the principle of separation of powers by subordinating access to the Judiciary to the dynamics of political control by the Executive and Legislative branches; among other national and international provisions.
Regarding the elimination of the trusts ordered under the judicial reform, the judge criticized Congress for exceeding its authority by disposing of resources that originally belong to employees of the Federal Judiciary (PJF).
“The challenged act violates the principle of separation of powers and the budgetary autonomy of the Federal Judiciary by seeking the reintegration of resources that constitute an autonomous estate allocated to labor and social security rights,” he added.
The plaintiff works for the PJF at a troubled court
The ruling benefits only the plaintiff, Claudia Lissette Montaño Mendoza, secretary of agreements at the Fourth Collegiate Court for Civil Matters in the State of Mexico, based in Toluca. She previously served as secretary of study and legal affairs in the chambers of retired Supreme Court Justice Jorge Mario Pardo Rebolledo. The ruling orders that the reform no longer be applied to her.
Currently, the Fourth Collegiate Court for Civil Matters is facing a crisis because its three magistrates, Javier Cardoso Chávez, Fernando Sánchez Calderón, and Rocío Loaeza González, were suspended by the Judicial Discipline Tribunal (TDJ), which has so far not officially disclosed the reasons.
As of today, the directory of the Judicial Administration Body (OAJ) lists Moisés Duarte Briz as the court’s new presiding magistrate. He had previously been assigned to a Collegiate Court in Michoacán, while the other two magistrate positions are occupied by secretaries serving as acting magistrates.
The three previous members participated on August 21 in an extraordinary session to resolve a complaint.
Sánchez Calderón and Cardoso Chávez are career magistrates, while Loaeza González was elected magistrate through popular vote. As a result, the court has stopped publishing the rulings and notices that it is required to issue on a daily basis.
Source: proceso
