In a statement, the authority recalled that the Court, headed by President Norma Piña, ” ordered the district judges to correct their own sentences, taking into account the reasoned in the session of its plenary; That is, the suspensions do not proceed in electoral matters. ”
The Court explained that at no time revoked the suspensions issued by district judges, as erroneously has been considered in different instances, including the SCJN.
” In this case, article 41 of the Constitution was applied, which clearly establishes that in electoral matters the protection does not proceed, so it is not possible to stop a democratic process of choice, “he added.
The Court reiterated that it will continue ” acting as the maximum instance in electoral matters, independently and without admitting the intervention of any other judicial authority. ”
Court summarizes judges to review suspensions
With six votes in favor, the Plenary of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) determined that the judges who have issued suspensions related to the judicial election must review them ex officio and assess that in electoral matters they are not appropriate.
However, in their analysis they must consider the cases in which they do have competence to resolve amparos and dictate precautionary measures, which is when human rights or public order issues are affected.
In their resolution, the ministers declared, by majority of seven votes, that the sentences of the Superior Chamber of the Electoral Court of the Judicial Power of the Federation (TEPJF) “are opinions that have no capacity to invalidate suspension orders issued by District Courts” .
The project presented by Minister Alfredo Gutiérrez Ortiz Mena was partially endorse , to comply with those mandates and to combat them by the institutional route, that is, through complaints in collegiate circuit courts.
That would have involved that from President Claudia Sheinbaum, to the National Electoral Institute (INE), the two Chambers of the Congress of the Union and the State Congresses would have had to comply with the suspensions that dictated various courts, which did not take place.
The Court thus resolved the controversy promoted by the Evaluation Committee of the Judicial Power of the Federation (CEPJF), since it faced two contradictory orders: the suspensions issued by the first district judges in Michoacán and sixth district in administrative matters in Jalisco so that They stopped the process of definition of judicial candidates, and the Judgment of the TEPJF that sent them to move forward.
Now, with the determination of the court of the Court, a term was given to the judges who have issued suspensions so that 24 hours from the notification of the sentence, review their ex officio resolutions.
In the discussion, Minister Javier Laynez clarified that not all suspensions would have to revoke themselves, since there are amparo judgments that have nothing to do with electoral matter, but that they serve the matters for which the judges are empowered to resolve.
“I reject any argument that we already decreed any action of inadmissibility for any amparo trial,” said some of the arguments that the National Association of District Judges and Circuit Magistrates (Jufed) presented in dozens of amparos.
In their amparo requests they asked that the judges not cease and remove; that they are not forced to participate in the election so as not to affect their appointment; that their remuneration are not reduced; that the funds, trusts and mandates that serve to cover the complementary assets are not extinguished.
In other amparos it was requested that the pensions were not suppressed, in some more it was claimed that judicial independence was affected, the life project, this because it was considered that people who had five, 30 or 40 years of their judicial careers and judicial guarantees were being violated, he explained.
