▲ Circuit magistrates and district judges protested against the reform of the Judicial Branch on July 12, in front of the Federal Palace of Justice in Mexico City.Photo by Jose Antonio Lopez
Ivan Evair Saldana
The newspaper La Jornada
Monday, August 5, 2024, p. 5
For Minister Javier Laynez Potisek, a reform of the Federal Judicial Branch (PJF) is necessary to address the country’s justice problems, but the solution is not the current presidential initiative that will be discussed in the coming days in the commissions of the Chamber of Deputies.
In a statement released yesterday by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN), the minister rejected the changes proposed by the initiative, such as electing judges, magistrates and ministers by popular vote; he argued that judges should be allowed to raise questions and doubts about the reform because they impact the organization of the PJF.
“How is it possible that I cannot have an opinion? For example, regarding the election of ministers, judges, magistrates, that is, a reform of this importance, and that you cannot say anything (…) that we can say: it is not convenient, it is not a good reform, the election is not the solution to the problem that is intended to be solved in terms of the protection of human rights,” he said in an interview on a program on Justicia Tv, the official channel of the PJF.
Regarding the changes proposed by the President, Laynez said that constitutional judges They must remain absent from the political debate, but not from the technical debate.
since, he said, if this reform is approved it will have an impact on the way justice is administered.
The minister ruled out that the judges’ opinions meant that they were putting forward criteria and, thus, would be unable to resolve a possible case on the subject.
Laynez considered that in the judicial reform there must be an exercise of self-criticism, in which an analysis is made to determine what can be changed to improve the PJF.
Over the past few months, judges, magistrates and ministers have participated in public events to express their position on the upcoming reform of the PJF. A large part of them have done so in rejection of the constitutional amendment.
