Ministers “did not instruct revoking suspensions” against judicial reform

Gustavo Castillo García

La Jornada newspaper
Sunday, February 16, 2025, p. 6

A new controversy began to take shape yesterday at the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN), because while the switching project of the sentence around the suspensions granted against judicial reform says that They should not be grantedthey must be revoked and the judges may not grant amparos that contrast the constitutional changes in this matter, the SCJN Social Communication Directorate disseminated an informative card in which he affirms that in the session last Thursday, in which the ministers addressed The subject, The judges were not instructed to revoke the suspensions granted against judicial reform and the election for ministers, magistrates and judges.

Only, add, It was determined that the judges have to review the amparo demands, in what is strictly electoral.

The elaboration of the Engrose, that is, the sentence already with all the expressions made by the ministers and with the determinations called effects, was in charge of Minister Alfredo Gutiérrez Ortiz Mena, and states that the suspensions granted must be revoked because its granting generates an affectation much greater than public order than the benefit that applicants could obtain.

Also points out: From this moment, the Plenary of the Court clarifies that this freedom of appreciation of the judges to grant amparos against judicial reform, It has ceased. This sentence is the starting point from which it must be understood that the suspensions of all these amparos overflow the material limits of the constitutional article 107.

And he adds that a constitutional reform procedure for the renewal of the Judiciary, as well as acts aimed at its implementation, are public order; Hence the suspensions should not be granted.

When the Engrose project was distributed among the ministers for review, what members of the country’s highest court described as an attempt to confuse with the dissemination of the information card of the Social Communication Card came.

In the underlying study section, the project establishes that District Courts only maintain their freedom of appreciation with respect to the dictation of suspensions in the non -electoral components of judicial reformthat is, they can only attend to the immobility of judges and magistrates, salary issues and other administrative aspects.

Regarding the electoral aspects, such as the performance of the evaluation committees, the conduct of the election by the Senate and the implementation measures of the INE, is clear and is defined by a mandatory precedent that are aspects in electoral matters. Estimate it otherwise is to contradict the criteria of the Court that came to order this matter.

In the same way that the effects that are mandatory for the Courts of Amparo will have “a 24 -hour period from the notification or publication of this judgment in the Official Gazette of the Federation “ And explain: As part of their considerations, judge must attend to what is defined by this Supreme Court in the unconstitutionality action 164/2024whereby they must revoke the suspensions in the electoral aspect because its granting generates an affectation much greater than public order than the benefit that applicants could obtainreiterates.