Andrea Becerril
La Jornada Newspaper
Sunday, October 12, 2025, p. 5
On the second day of public hearings in the Chamber of Deputies, regarding the Amparo Law minutes, positions were confronted. On the one hand, academics, litigants and representatives of large legal firms demanded to eliminate the changes regarding the concept of legitimate interest since, they maintained, it violates human rights by restricting the trial of guarantees to groups. On the other hand, there were those who argued that it should remain on its terms because it puts an end to excesses and arbitrariness.
Academics and jurists such as Arturo Guerrero Zazueta and Arturo Pueblita, experts in tax law, argued that if the legislation is approved with the wording of the fifth article, the protection of rights will be restricted and they proposed that judges be given the freedom to decide when it is a legitimate interest in a demand for precautionary measures.
Another of the speakers, lawyer Andrés García Repper, political commentator and who was a member of the evaluation committee of the Legislative Branch – which rated part of those who contested in the judicial election last June – refuted these arguments and warned that what they really propose is “to lead us to a government of the judges, where the law says nothing, the deputies and senators do not legislate, so that everything is interpreted by the and the judges.”
This hearing focused on the fifth article of the Amparo Law, which the Senate sent to them and which establishes: “In the case of legitimate interest, the rule, act or omission claimed must cause the complainant an individual or collective legal injury, real and differentiated from the rest of the people, in such a way that its annulment produces a certain benefit and not merely hypothetical or eventual, in the event that the “protection.”
García Repper recalled that the senators modified the initiative of President Claudia Sheinbaum, to make it clear that the legitimate interest includes individual and collective matters. “The definition was simply changed, so that the judges have greater clarity and, of course, that they will have full jurisdiction to interpret.”
Pueblita maintained that this change in terms of legitimate interest was due to the large number of amparos against the Mayan Train, but “the solution is not to limit access to the amparo trial,” but to prevent the Legislature and the Executive from committing arbitrary acts.”
On behalf of the Fundar analysis and research center, Natalia Pérez Cordero, also asked to change the wording of that article, because, she declared, it limits access to justice in environmental issues and in general in the defense of human rights. For her part, lawyer Verónica Osornio Plata proposed “putting limits” on “masked associations” that misuse legitimate interest.
Director of a law firm that represents more than 600 Mexican and foreign clients, Eduardo Rusconi Trujillo, warned that the reform of the Amparo Law as a whole “is deeply regressive” and with it the federal government only “seeks political and fiscal control against businessmen and relevant taxpayers.”
It is worth saying that the Green Room of San Lázaro was almost empty, there were no more than seven legislators among them the president of the Justice Commission, Julio César Moreno, who in the end rejected that they intended to give a albazobut maintained that the judges will meet on Monday afternoon to vote on that minute, “which can be perfected,” after the third and final hearing that same day.
