During the session, held this Monday afternoon, the plenary session of the Electoral Tribunal resolved that noNo authority, power or organ of the State can suspend, limit, condition or restrict activities related to the electoral process. extraordinary for the election of positions in the Judicial Branch of the Federation, so the current stages must continue.
The magistrates thus resolved queries raised by the Senate and the National Electoral Institute (INE) about 140 suspensions issued by federal courts to stop the electoral process.
A third appeal was promoted by the counselor of the INE, Rita Bell, who asked the TEPJF to guarantee the full exercise of the electoral function as a member of the higher management body of the aforementioned autonomous body. However, the magistrates rejected that request because it is the presiding counselor, Guadalupe Taddei, who is the legal representative of the INE.
The resolution was endorsed with the votes of three magistrates: Soto Fregoso, Felipe Alfredo Fuentes –speaker- and Felipe de la Mata. They voted against judges Janine Otálora and Reyes Rodríguez Mondragón.
The central argument was that the Constitution establishes that there is no legal remedy that can suspend an election, since priority is given to guarantees of certainty and legality.
But in addition, Fuentes and de la Mata agreed, a constitutional supremacy reform with which the jurisdictional bodies are prevented from reviewing constitutional reforms.
“It is unfeasible that, through suspensive or precautionary action, it is attempted, based on challenges that are inadmissible, to suspend the constitutionally provided election process, whose stages are strictly intertwined and whose purpose and objectives would be seriously frustrated,” he said. From the Mata.
Judge Otálora assured that the TEPJF is not a competent body to resolve matters that are under the amparo process.
For this reason, he insisted that the resolution be postponed until the SCJN rules on the jurisdictional consultation raised by collegiate circuit courts and admitted by the Court on October 14.
Reyes Rodríguez warned that this decision is exceeding the jurisdiction of the Superior Chamberby knowing directly or indirectly about the amparo suspensions, which is equivalent, he said, to validating or invalidating the effects of district court resolutions.
He even assured that the TEPJF will contribute to the uncertainty experienced by the judicial reform process.
“Involving the plenary session in this process is particularly serious because it implies not addressing the division of jurisdiction within the Mexican legal system, it exceeds our jurisdiction and contributes to judicial uncertainty,” the magistrate warned.
