It was a logical idea: stop in time, administratively sanction, prevent.
But the reality of 2026 shows something different. Civic justice exists in the role of national law, but it lacks the resources, the structure and, above all, the operational capacity to confront a Mexico where criminal dynamics have gone beyond the scope of administrative offenses for years.
This is the gap that explains why a regulatory model has not found its functional expression in the territory.
The obligation that is not financed: barefoot mandate in the municipality
The federal government elevated civic justice to a national mandate without allocating any budget for its municipal implementation.
This is the first failure: making what is not financed mandatory is, simply, legislating for fiction.
Municipalities receive the responsibility of operating civic courts, training personnel, and providing infrastructure, but without federal resources to support it. Some municipalities attempted to comply; others simply couldn’t. The result is a patchwork of institutionalized non-compliance where enforcement depends less on legal will than on local budgetary capacity.
The obligation, furthermore, ignores the extreme heterogeneity of Mexico. A municipality of 10,000 inhabitants in Oaxaca faces radically different criminal dynamics than a municipality of 500,000 in Jalisco.
Applying the same model to both is institutional arrogance.
The solution requires differentiated financing in three ways: a federal baseline for all municipalities (minimum 5,000 million annually), a state co-participation proportional to the local crime rate, and a complementary municipal budget.
In addition, there must be regulatory flexibility that allows municipalities to adjust implementation according to their specific criminal reality.
Who pays? The broken financing triangle
Today there is a broken triangle.
The federal government orders but does not invest.
State entities have parallel powers in security but not clear responsibilities in civic justice. Municipalities bear the burden without the resources. This budget gap has turned civic justice into an operational sham in many jurisdictions.
A viable reform must structure a system of co-participation with three pillars:
First, The federal government assumes 50% of the operating costs through a direct transfer conditional on quality standards.
Second, State governments contribute 30%, encouraging them to exercise real supervision over the municipalities.
Third, The municipalities contribute 20% locally, guaranteeing that no government abdicates responsibility.
In addition, a federal technological equipment fund must be created that digitizes civic courts, preventing each municipality from reinventing the wheel.
And, crucial element: establish quarterly audits on budget execution with sanctions for governments that fail to meet operational goals.
