Although the judge’s resolution has been partially complied with, there is another set of unfulfilled suspensions: some were to suspend the legislative debate, or to not send the approved decree to the state Legislatures, which was also ordered by Morelos judges. and Chiapas. The Senate failed to comply with both.
Other suspension was so that the president of the Republic would refrain from publishing the reformwhich was also not fulfilled and was ordered by the judge of Colima.
The Judicial Reform was published on September 15, in the middle of national holidays, by the then president Andrés Manuel López Obrador.
(Photo: Cuartoscuro/Moisés Pablo Nava)
After publication in the DOF, Judge Juárez Salas granted a suspension with restorative effects to nullify the action of the Federal Executive.
Days later, the Iris Foundation expanded its demand. It went directly against the content of the reform, due to procedural defects and suspension defects (contempt). The National Electoral Institute (INE) was ordered suspended so that it would not advance in the process of preparing the judicial election. The order is expected to be complied with. Although the Institute itself has started work on the process that will take place in 2025.
For her part, Judge Grisell Rodríguez, of the fifth district court in the State of Yucatán, heard the protection filed by Leoncio Paisano and the On September 30, he ordered the practically total suspension of the election: that the Senate does not issue a call and that the INE suspends actions.
He called on the two chambers of Congress and the 32 state legislatures not to carry out the secondary reforms and on the Federal Judiciary Council (CJF) not to implement the reform.
In the latter case, the CJF must not inform the Senate of the proportion of positions to be elected in each judicial circuit, the number and place of assignment where the vacancies, resignations and scheduled retirements are, an input that is necessary for the Senate to issue the call to select the positions to choose.
All the suspensions listed were ignored by Morena and allies in the chambers, because as their representatives – including Ricardo Monreal and Gerardo Fernández Noroña – have said, “nothing can stop the election in the Judiciary.”
What’s next in the litigation against judicial reform?
For the lawyer Alejandro Valenzuela, all the deputies and senators who ignored the resolutions of suspension of the judges of Morelos and Chiapas must be sanctioned, For this reason, he has already filed a request for impeachment in the Chamber of Deputies.
“Whether the protection or suspension was properly granted or not, that corresponds to the litigation, to the substance of a matter, but it is not valid for them to say I do not agree with the protection, I do not comply with it,” he expresses.
Raúl Andrade, constitutionalist and legal representative of the Iris Foundation, one of the promoters of the amparos to stop the court order, explains that now it is time for the judges to assess whether or not there was contempt, in which the amparos are analyzed or the Supreme Court it does.
The expectation is that the judges conclude that a contempt was incurred, that they enforce their orders and that everything is retrograded, that is, that it returns to the original state of things, that the Judicial Reform does not exist when the publication is annulled. in the DOF. This has already been ordered by the Veracruz judge and has not come to fruition.
“If the judge (of Colima) does not do it, we would go to the complaint to complain about this contempt before a Court,” highlights Adrade.
But even the jurist suggests that it is not enough now to act and stop the Judicial Reform but to defend the powers of judges and courts to issue suspensions, since now these too, as part of the figure of protection, are being weakened.
“You are at risk due to this disobedience that was incurred by practically all the authorities identified as responsible, what proceeds now is to report the case to the Attorney General’s Office (FGR), since the bad precedent of ignoring the order of a judge with the argument that he does not agree,” he points out.
