The above because the INE asked to revoke the suspension by arguing that the Superior Chamber of the Electoral Tribunal of the Judiciary (TEPJF) issued various resolutions ordering to continue with the electoral process in which judges, magistrates and ministers will be elected by direct vote in June of 2025.
The judge responded to the INE that the resolutions issued by the Court “do not have binding effects” nor are they mandatory for this body of constitutional control in matters of protection, since the scope of what was resolved there is limited and lacks the legal force of a sentence. .
Furthermore, he said that there is no trial or appeal in the General Law of Means of Challenge in Electoral matters that aims to enable the Federal Electoral Court to resolve acts of constitutional control bodies that are outside its sphere of competence.
Furthermore, he emphasized that while the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) does not resolve the decision of the Electoral Court on not complying with the suspensions issued against the 2025 election, it must comply with the judicial determinations adopted by the constitutional control body. .
That is, he asked the General Council of the INE to comply with the definitive suspensions issued within a period of 48 hours from its legal notification, “without excuses or pretexts.”
Since November, the Jufed denounced that the INE was in contempt for not suspending the judicial election despite the dozens of judicial suspensions there are.
Judge Isidro Muñoz Acevedo pointed out on that occasion that the ruling of the Electoral Court, in which it was determined that “it is constitutionally unfeasible to suspend the election” of members of the Judiciary, is not mandatory for any judge or for the INE.
“No one doubts that the Electoral Tribunal is the highest authority in electoral matters, (but) in amparo not only is it not the highest authority, it is not even an authority that appears on how to resolve this type of trials,” Muñoz Acevedo said on that occasion. .
