For electoral experts, the issuance of the decree was possible not because there were doubts of interpretation, but because of the absence of the Regulatory Law of article 134 of the Constitution, that is, all the political forces are jointly responsible for the legislative omission.
“They should have regulated it three decades ago but they did not do it because deep down all the parties benefited from that legal vacuum because they found a hole and they left that way and the Courts have had to advance their interpretations to each new trap”, explains Luis Eduardo Medina, research professor at the Autonomous Metropolitan University (UAM).
The urgency to issue this reinterpretation was to allow any public servant, especially President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, to issue all kinds of expressions –verbal, written, on social networks– without these being considered propaganda, in the context of the revocation process. April 10 mandate but with an impact on future elections.
For Fernando Vargas Manríquez, former legal representative of the Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) before the National Electoral Institute (INE) and who in that capacity was part of the defense of the former PRD candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador in 2006 and 2012, the decree took advantage of this lack of secondary regulation.
But “that hasty and hasty decree is not correct either. It was a response from Morena to the excessive restriction that the electoral authority is establishing, but the broad permission that they now want to allow is not valid” for officials.
“That is a sin of this decree, it ignores the history that we have lived of officials promoting themselves thanks to the fraud of the law. It is nothing more to say that the expense of officials in promoting themselves is not budgeted and is not a public resource so that it can be allowed. No, because then that is allowing fraud against the law” and sooner or later the norm will be turned around, he warns.
