It is already clear to many people today that the grotesque ambition that, to a greater or lesser extent, exists in everyone who seeks to be placed in a bureaucratic position through elections, in which juicy remunerations are obtained regardless of effectiveness in performance or the results obtained, is essentially and inescapably at odds with the attributes of the jurisdictional function, since the peculiar subjects who suffer from such ambition desperately seek the backing, support, and even subsidies, of those who they consider can influence the result, thereby compromising their objectivity, if not even selling their loyalty.
Nothing is more subject to the miseries of that base passion called politics, than what is deposited in an urn, that is, what depends on the malleable tally sheets that live in orphanhood as soon as the boxes are closed. If anyone believes that I point out and object to the reliability of simple citizens who, with a lack of electoral training, and without the permanent protection of the State, naively participate in a process as rigged and dirty as the one embodied in the Mexican electoral laws, it is right.
The crooks, in the best of cases, give them 20 turns with the scrutiny reports, to finally send the thoroughly completed ones to the lair of some cartel, or, in the worst of cases, they force them to catafix the real one with the tufted one, taking into account those responsible for guarding the ballot boxes, in the unlikely event that, after a complicated and long process, it is decided to review some of them. We have all seen reports of “lost” ballots before the race, given that the security measures are so primitive that they are within the reach of the powerful wallets of criminals. The safeguards of the ridiculous process are so exposed that it is only a matter of “how”, to twist them, or apply the already well-known act or lead.
That is the origin of the large number of deputies and senators. It was thought in the 19th century that it would be very difficult, costly or risky to violate hundreds of positions, but, with time and a little cloth, the corrupting technique today allows the goal of obtaining a qualified majority, and obtaining it, almost, per note. Being a power that acts tumultuarily, the requirements to obtain a position as a deputy or senator are few, and are truly innocuous. It is not necessary to know how to read or write, nor to have completed higher education, much less to be an expert or expert in any subject. All you need is an unlimited capacity to speak, shout, insult, denigrate, accuse and criticize, of course, apart from being able to press a button with a synchronized paddle.
Well, it is the case that such colorful characters left us without a structure that was formed over decades, in which we had already paid, as a nation, the learning curve, and a perfectible, but reasonably good, judicial service had been formed. career. We already had an apparatus made up of people who dedicated not years, but decades, and even a lifetime, to administering justice.
What has happened in recent weeks would be worthy of the show of the slapping clown or the slapping thugs, if it were not one of the most dramatically destructive events of the founding pact that the world has ever witnessed. As, unfortunately, is often the case, we highlight the bad. Beyond having made a portentous international ridicule, it is clear that we woke up in a political environment equal to that of Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua or Russia. The only difference is the looting here is just beginning, but the ending will be the same. In the countries that we now adopt as a pattern, absolutism generates a small and closed oligarchy that merges with the high bureaucracy. The chosen model is a direct route to deepen and perpetuate the poor distribution of wealth.
Constitutional scrutiny is over, whatever the legislative body, which has proven to be more than bad at making laws, says, will be incontrovertible legal truth. In just eight weeks, we can affirm with certainty that those fifth-class tents, which they call Chambers, do not represent the people, but rather the ambitious leaders of the party in power, which clings feverishly to it.
But let’s stop to analyze what has happened in terms of jurisdiction in Mexico. Simply and plainly, effective access to justice was prohibited, and effective protection was also annulled, while the sentences handed down became unenforceable. Given the complicit and elusive blindness of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, here, first the rights provided for in articles 8, 10 and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights, which provide for the international commitment to provide access to judicial service, became unenforceable. , and with this, provide individuals with a simple, but effective mechanism that allows them to deduce the rights enshrined in law, including those enforceable against authority. This occurred without meriting comment, observation or condemnation of the dull, useless and sterile protective mechanism of conventional rights.
Faced with the unacceptable connivance of the OAS, and other expensive organizations created to prevent what has happened here from happening, now, the unpresentable legislators have decided to subordinate international agreements and conventions to the pathetic ideas that they vote for, the latter being already a mockery. , given that once the initiative is taken by Morena, what she orders is law, yes, although it takes time to be reflected in the Official Gazette of the Federation. The theatrical voting event is carried out considering that the only mission in the lives of several hundred legislators is to press a button. Although, if they do not pressure it, or do not attend, they charge the same, it fills them with pride to have been valuable to the president.
In a state of law, the generalized state of denial of justice would have consequences, however, Mexicans have been denied not only the power to exercise basic fundamental rights, but also to demand, in justice, reparation for the state’s patrimonial responsibility with in relation to damages incurred as a result of delay, inaction or insufficient or deficient provision of an essential service, this prerogative being only available to foreigners, affected or injured by the lack of a judicial apparatus in permanent operation.
The body that clearly failed and betrayed its constitutional function is the Federal Judiciary Council, having left the means of challenge to the wind; the scope of the precautionary measures, including, of course, and notably, the suspension of the claimed act, as well as the omission of substantive duties of discipline, not punishment, that they should have exercised with respect to the judging persons, for the benefit and benefit of that people, whom they claim to represent, while they are robbed of prerogatives that they had achieved, with blood and fire, more than 200 years ago.
Reiterating that one side of the coin was the staunch defense of what constituted us as a rule of law, the other, undeniably, presents a partial suspension of individual guarantees, given that, for a time, and over a vast territorial extension, various fundamental rights, particularly those of due process, were suspended, or viewed in a less rigid manner, treated as one of limited respect or restricted protection, that is, they were entrusted to the discretionary knowledge and understanding of each judging person.
That is, the Federal Judiciary Council, for weeks, refrained from issuing rules and provisions that would make effective principles enshrined in the Constitution, leaving to the discretion of each judge the prompt, complete and expeditious provision of the phases, stages and rights of procedure, this, under the cryptic and mistaken notion of “urgency”, which was abandoned to the free interpretation of the obligated party. This notion determined when the request was processed, or not, before the courts, causing all kinds of uncertainties, abuses, legal injuries and defenselessness, for which, sooner or later, we will have to respond.
It is important to highlight that such a directive should not have been applied with a single standard, without looking at the matters or the object of the request, since the strike would inevitably have various consequences. ‘Expeditity’ and opportunity cannot be valued in the same way in civil or commercial matters, where a brief delay may not be seriously harmful, unlike family, criminal, labor or agrarian matters, in which promptness Intervention can make a substantive difference, to avoid transcendent or irreparable effects.
