The complaint was filed by Abraham Cano, a constitutional lawyer who is a member of the legal team of the Federation for the Defense of Private Schools (FEDE), who announced the filing of the appeal on his Twitter account. “Now the ball is in the court” of the deputies, he asserted.
In her document, she explained that the minister does not comply with the requirement established in article 95 of the Constitution, section IV, referring to “good reputation”, derived from the fact that the UNAM confirmed that the thesis she submitted to present her professional exam and obtain her title Law graduate was not original, but substantially a copy of a document from a year earlier.
In addition, there is evidence of “null compliance with the guiding principles as a public servant”, provided for in article 5 of the General Law of the National Anti-Corruption System (SNA).
That section establishes that “the following are the guiding principles that govern the public service: legality, objectivity, professionalism, honesty, loyalty, impartiality, efficiency, efficacy, equity, transparency, economy, integrity and competence based on merit. Public Entities are obliged to create and maintain structural and regulatory conditions that allow the proper functioning of the State as a whole, and the ethical and responsible performance of each public servant”.
For this reason, in the lawsuit, the plaintiff indicates that he is going “to denounce and request the initiation of the impeachment trial for the attack on democratic institutions and omissions of a serious nature.”
According to the complaint, having a good reputation is “essential for the normal functioning of the position held by the public servant accused, since, according to the plenary session of the SCJN, a good reputation is of great importance since it ensures that public servants are capable and independent, endowed with ethical values and personal virtues, which have an intrinsic relationship with the legality of Mexican democratic institutions and the expression of national sovereignty in the appointment of ministers and ministers”.
“After the opinion issued by the UNAM, as well as a study of the facts, this legislative authority may realize that in order for a substantial copy of the thesis presented by the public servant in 1987 to be configured with the original dated 1986, said public servant had to have knowledge of the prior existence of the proposed intellectual work, so at the time of her appointment as minister of the highest court she led national sovereignty into error, since she hid said conduct,” she points out.
The letter and its ratification were received by the General Secretariat of the Chamber of Deputies and its General Directorate of Legal Affairs and it was turned over to the Subcommittee for Prior Examination, where the deputies must process it.
