Bernardo Batiz V.
C
as a reaction against the project of reforms to the Judicial Branch, the President’s permanent critics and also now many public servants of that branch, who feel aggrieved by the change, oppose it, carry out strikes, marches, hang posters and distribute leaflets; have used as grounds for their criticism, that what they intend is to defend the independence of the Judicial Branch.
What is it about? Dependence is the opposite of independence; in the Judiciary, each court, each judge, in the exercise of their functions must be independent, and this regardless of the regime or system of appointment or election of judges. The same applies if they are proposed by the Executive and approved by the Senate or if, as will soon be the case, they are approved by popular vote based on lists drawn up by three powers.
Juan Palomar de Miguel, in his Dictionary for lawyers (Mexico, Mayo Editions, 1981) defines independence
as freedom, autonomy and above all a State that is not a tributary of another
; adds a second meaning fortitude, firmness of character
. For his part, Eduardo Pallares in his work Dictionary of civil procedural law (Mexico, Porrúa, fourth edition, 1963) states The judiciary should not be subordinated in its constitution and operation to another power
.
The independence of judges, magistrates and ministers, when we think about it, is not something external nor does it have its origin in the path or procedure by which one reaches the position. Independence lies in the solidity of personal virtues, in the conscience and in the freedom of the person who dictates a sentence or determines a suspension.
In order to make their decisions, judges need independence, which means being limited to determining the dispute in each case, understanding the reason for the dispute, knowing well what the substance of the dispute is, analyzing and evaluating the evidence and listening to the arguments and allegations of the parties; with all that, their responsibility lies in deciding who is right and who is wrong; they exercise their freedom if what they determine responds to what was alleged and proven in the process without taking anything else into account.
The judge who decides in response to outside instructions, who receives bribes for his work, who decides out of fear, or who does so because he feels committed to the person who helped him get to the position or to the person who appointed him, will not be free.
Your freedom or independence is based on your integrity and honesty, internal and personal qualities; of course, it is also very important that you have knowledge of law, logic, ethics, facts and their accreditation; when it comes to knowledge that requires special knowledge, you are obliged to consult with accredited experts. In order to know what really happened, that is, what are the facts to which you have to apply a legal norm, you need to listen to witnesses, analyze documents, know and interpret the clues, relate them to each other and with integrity and good faith, determine for yourself and before yourself, without any external influence and based only on what your conscience and your intelligence dictate.
If he does so, he will be independent, and, redundantly, he will be independent regardless of how he came to office; on the other hand, anyone who receives a mandate or accepts a bribe is dependent, whether he came to office by popular election or by the procedure in the process of being repealed, that is, proposed by the Executive and elected by the Senate.
For this reason, I consider that the alleged defence of the independence of judges is nothing more than a veil to hide the real reasons of many who oppose change; what interests them is not the independence that comes from their own conscience, but rather the fact that the reform is about the secure status they have as judges, the privileged social position, the higher average income than the rest of the public servants, or they fear that a life plan that is sometimes difficult and always laborious, but ultimately secure, will be interrupted.
They defend their independence, but deep down, they defend their privileges, and some do this consciously, others do not; without much reflection, they accept this ideological and political position without further analysis.
The truth is that the independence of the judiciary is not at stake and what is truly important is to know whether the Mexican nation overcomes a past that has worn out, largely corrupted and is already history or if we take a step forward, incorporate justice into the transformation and democratize it, taking into account the popular vote as in the other powers.
As has been happening, as in other cases, in order to tarnish a government with many achievements and a system that was endorsed by a clear majority of voters, as a new attack they have invented that they are defending an independence that is in no way in danger.
