Until before the judicial reform, Czech explains, there were additional requirements for these tasks, such as the profiles had to be distinguished by their professional and administrative capacity, honesty and honorability in the exercise of their activities.
In addition, some “locks” were had such as not having been holders of any secretariat.
“However, those locks that were more or less being safeguarding their independence, because with the judicial reform they were removed,” says Czech.
Now, very simple bases were established, the specialist considers, and are not necessarily aimed at guaranteeing technical, specialized and independent profiles.
It will be enough, for example, a five -year professional degree and experience in law, economy, act, administration or accounting.
They are also requirements: to be Mexican by birth, in full exercise of their civil and political rights; not be disabled to perform a job, charge or commission in the public service; nor have been convicted of an malicious crime with a private sanction.
Another difference is that the Supreme Court issued a call to magistrates and courts to be part of the judiciary. The Senate also published an agreement with a public call.
“And in some cases interviews were made to the people who wanted to be counselors. I know that all these elements because in some cases they were process because there were already decisions made, but there was more scrutiny, transparency,” says Czech.
Now, on the other hand, the Executive and the Legislative will have an envoy in the administration of the Judiciary.
“And in the end more discretion increases and we know that, when there is greater discretion, because there is also greater opacity,” says the expert.
The ‘Judges of Judges’
In addition to Judicial Administration Bodythe specialists maintain their concern in the Discipline Court, whose function will be to monitor the performance of judges and magistrates, as well as submit them to investigation and eventual administrative sanction.
For specialists, there is a risk that this Court will be used as a “weapon of pressure or prosecution of judges” for the content of their sentences, and not necessarily for cases of corruption.
This, because judicial reform left ambiguous concepts such as the lack of objectivity, professionalism or excellence as causes to sanction federal judges.
“It may sanction public servants who incur acts or omissions contrary to the law, the administration of justice or the principles of objectivity, impartiality, independence, professionalism or excellence, in addition to the matters determined by law,” says article 100 of the Constitution.
The Discipline Court may also act if there is no “due diligence”, delay or delay when resolving tax and fiscal cases.
