On July 7, the PRI in the National Assembly reformed its statute when the district counts of the federal election were still in progress, and article 34 of the General Law of Political Parties prohibits them from reforming their basic documents once they have begun. an electoral process.
Due to this, the INE on September 12 did not analyze the substance of the PRI’s statutory reforms, but instead declared the impossibility of ruling on the verification of compliance with the statutory procedure and the constitutional and legal origin of the modifications presented to the statutes and the declaration of principles and issuance of the tricolor action program.
Today the Superior Chamber of the TEPJF analyzed the case. The rapporteur, Janine Otálora Malassis, proposed invalidating the tricolor’s statutory reforms, because that party did not comply with the Law and its prohibition on making amendments to basic statutes in the middle of a process.
However, three magistrates voted against, they went into the substance of the matter so that it did not return to the INE with the argument of urgency.
(Photo: Daniel Augusto/Cuartoscuro)
The three judges were Felipe Alfredo Fuentes Barrera, President Mónica Soto Fregoso and Felipe de la Mata Pizaña, who voted without giving a single argument.
The presiding judge Soto saw that the federal electoral process that concluded on August 28 was “intertwined” with the upcoming electoral processes, almost four months away, which are in Durango and Veracruz, and justified in that proximity that the PRI has changed its statutes in a prohibited time.
Fuentes not only saw the amendments as valid, considering that a case from 2018 is applicable in which an exception was also made when Morena reformed its statutes when the federal electoral process was still in progress, but he went further and proposed that the TEPJF analyze the case and did not return it to the INE.
Fuentes insisted on arguments such as those put forward by the PRI, such as the urgency of giving certainty to the militants on the eve of a local electoral process, a case similar to that of Morena.
However, in the case of Morena, the TEPJF accepted the exception because the upcoming local elections would begin in 15 days. The guinda party modified candidacy attributes and extended its leadership until 2019.
In the case of the PRI, there were still 4 months left and in fact they have not started, until November 1 in Durango and November 10 in Veracruz.
The tricolor established new powers of its management bodies, as well as the duration of its members, consecutive reelection and rules linked to political violence against women in Razón de Género, but in which it was already in contempt since 2021, four years ago. .
In the discussion, Judge Otálora warned that by entering into full jurisdiction and not only agreeing with the PRI, but also immediately deciding to endorse the PRI’s statutory reforms as legal and constitutional, she violates the right of the militants to be They would analyze 14 challenges to the content of the reforms and would also exclude women from the possibility of presiding over that party.
She recalled that the primary right of women is to participate in processes on equal terms, which is why she questioned why a militant has requested the entry into force of the PRI reforms to access candidates when they are deprived of guarantees to access the leadership. “What happens to the principle of gender alternation (in leadership)?” he asked.
He recalled that the TEPJF received challenges to the statutes and sent them to the INE, which, by not going into the substance of the matter and declaring itself unable to resolve, was unable to analyze the grievances of the complainants, among them national leaders of the tricolor, who objected to the re-election. by Moreno Cárdenas.
Reyes Rodríguez Mondragón said bluntly: “I categorically distance myself from going to full jurisdiction” and having the plenary session resolve the substance. He refuted the argument of urgency, since the PRI organized its statutory reform in a month and could well do it now, when there is still a month or more before the start of local elections.
He warned that with the assumed criteria, what is today a direct prohibition, that “in no case” can the basic documents of the parties be modified when an electoral process is underway, will remain, on the contrary, an exception.
Furthermore, “there are no urgent reasons (to resolve) and access to justice is completely sacrificed, in addition to the INE being unjustifiably relieved of its functions,” he said.
“The Court has urgency in addressing this matter and not others that are urgent, such as electoral processes and the annulment of elections,” he noted.
