The impact laboratory on the Rule of Law of Stanford made public a statement in which it referred to recent determinations of the Electoral Court of the Judicial Power of the Federation (TEPJF). He said that “he violated a precautionary mandate of the Supreme Court,” “excluded the nominations of the Judicial Power Evaluation Committee” and, with this, “granted to political powers the exclusive control of appointments.” He also said “a deep concern for the attempt of the Electoral Court to subvert the rule of law.”
None of the above and serious assertions have any foundation, or in the truth of the facts and less on the resolutions of the TEPJF.
The TEPJF revoked two agreements of the evaluation committee that suspended the continuation of the electoral process. He did it because the Constitution (arts. 29 and 41) orders that both human rights in political-electoral matters and electoral processes cannot be suspended.
The TEPJF did not disregard any precautionary measure of the SCJN. The Court has no competence in electoral matters, except for the unconstitutionality actions established in article 105 Constitutional. It is true that there is an admissory agreement of the SCJN to a request made by the PJF committee to analyze a conflict of competences (article 11, section XVII, of the LOPJF). There, the SCJN established that “it would not be updated in the members of the committee the constraints or the update of crimes for possible contempt of judicial mandates.”
The TEPJF was not ordered any action and on the contrary it was expressly said that no electoral judicial procedure was suspended. In any case, the precautionary measure decreed by SCJN was taken into account so that no sanction was imposed on the members of the committee.
Thus, in order to complete its sentence and guarantee the continuity of the process, the TEPJF issued measures for the fulfillment of its sentence in two ways: it assumed full jurisdiction to materialize that compliance (according to precedents since 2001) and established the effects of the same. To do this, he linked to the Board of Directors of the Senate of the Republic to proceed to the insaculation of people who can be candidates for judicial positions, given the rebellion of the Evaluation Committee.
What do you mean by this? That very far from what Stanford’s laboratory, in the sense that the TEPJF attempts against the rule of law, with these actions sought effective realization, precisely from that rule of law. With these measures, the TEPJF seeks to enforce its sentence and, with it, the mandates of the Constitution itself.
Nor is it true that Court “left political powers to control the candidacies.” In our resolution, it was established that the applicants who insaculate the Senate should be obtained “among the list of applicants that the PJF evaluation committee estimated that they met the requirements and which the upper room ordered to include in the list”. The decision of the candidacies was not left to the Senate’s arbitration, but at random, which is the constitutionally established method.
Contrary to what is said by the Standford laboratory, it is the full compliance, both of the Constitution and the rule of law, which governs the actions of the TEPJF.
It is a sadness that a university of that prestige has been “shaved” with partial information of the legal problem and applicable law. Therefore, 3 of the magistrates of the Superior Chamber invite it last week publicly to approach the TEPJF, in order to provide the complete information for what a reasonably an objective and independent judgment can be made.
