MEXICO CITY (El Universal).— After Ricardo Monreal Ávila, coordinator of the Morena bench, admitted that they made mistakes when ruling itthe president Claudia Sheinbaum He said that the errors will be corrected, but that does not invalidate the reform to the Judicial Power promoted by Andrés Manuel López Obrador.
The above when questioned about the comments made by Monreal Ávila that Article 94 and 97 of the Constitution contradict each other regarding the method for electing the president of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN), so He promised to correct the error.
“From what Ernestina Godoy told me today, does not imply any disability of the reform itself nor the election of the judges, as it is, and I understand that it is only a case where the times do not agree in both situations,” he said.
Claudia admitted that it was not reviewed AMLO’s reform when it was sent, but “We have to correct that part, but in other ways it does not invalidate the reform.”
They dispense reading
The plenary session of the Senate of the Republic dispensed with the first reading of the opinion of presidential reforms that regulate the process of electing judges, magistrates and ministers, which will be discussed and voted on in a session called for today.
The president of the Senate Board of Directors, Gerardo Fernández Noroñareported the waiver of the process of the reform of the General Law of the System of Means of Challenge in Electoral Matters, relating to the updating of the means of challenge in the process of election of the members of the Judicial Branch of the Federation.
To understand better: Ricardo Monreal admits errors in AMLO’s judicial reform, what are they?
It is a farce, the people will not elect judges, it will be Morena: Ricardo Anaya
Ricardo Anaya, In a separate interview, he lamented the rush and the legislative procedure that includes the right of veto of the federal government for the lists of judges, magistrates and ministers that was included in the opinion of the reform that AMLO proposed.
He said that this shows that it is a farce that the people will be the ones who choose the judges because in the end it will be Morena who decides.
“Los Morena senators have already taken off their masksbecause in the new procedure, which is violating the Constitution“Once the Evaluation Committee has the finalists, each power, that is, the President of the Republic, the majority in the Senate, will be able to approve and veto the people selected by said committee,” he noted.
“They can tell the committee: I want Pedro as minister and since you did not put Pedro on the list, I will reject the complete list,” he indicated.
Anaya regretted that the people of Mexico believe that they are going to vote freely, secretly and directly for the judges, but “They are kidding us, because in the end Morena will decide who remain as judges, ministers and magistrates,” he concluded.
PRI presents action: this reform will not improve justice
Meanwhile, the PRI presented an unconstitutionality action before the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation against the judicial reform.
The senator Carolina Viggianogeneral secretary of the tricolor party, explained at a press conference that said constitutional modification violates the principle of division of powers and the competence of the Judiciary.
“We are convinced in the Institutional Revolutionary Party that this reform will not improve justice and, on the contrary, it is only a attempt by the ruling party to control the Judiciary. We required a reform of justice, not a reform of the Judiciary,” said Carolina.
What were the vices when approving the judicial reform in Mexico?
He explained that they registered defects in the legislative procedure to approve this reform.
Among other irregularities, he listed the violation of two suspensionsthe lack of public deliberation and the lack of diffusion of the law in federal entities.
He highlighted that at the beginning of the discussion in the Chamber of Deputies legal quorum was not verified and there was also a violation of the principle of political representation.
Related
#errors #AMLOs #reform #Judiciary #invalidate
Interview with Political Analyst Laura Ramirez on Recent Judicial Reform Developments in Mexico
Interviewer: Thank you for joining us, Laura. Recent comments from Ricardo Monreal regarding the judicial reform promoted by President AMLO have raised some eyebrows. He admitted to mistakes in the reform process. What are these mistakes?
Laura Ramirez: Thank you for having me. Monreal’s admission highlights a contradiction between Articles 94 and 97 of the Constitution regarding the election of the president of the Supreme Court. This suggests that the current method of selecting judges may not align with constitutional mandates, which is a serious concern.
Interviewer: Claudia Sheinbaum responded by saying these errors do not invalidate the reform itself. How credible is that assertion, considering the significance of legal reforms?
Laura Ramirez: While Sheinbaum assures that the core reform remains intact, the fact that they’re acknowledging mistakes does point to potential legal vulnerabilities in the process. It’s crucial to correct these contradictions to ensure the longevity and stability of the reform. Ignoring them could lead to future legal challenges.
Interviewer: In a contrasting opinion, Ricardo Anaya called this reform a “farce.” He argues that it will ultimately allow Morena to control the selection of judges rather than empowering the public. What do you make of his claims?
Laura Ramirez: Anaya’s perspective indicates a widespread concern about the democratic process in judicial appointments. If the government retains veto power over shortlisted candidates, it undermines the essence of independent judiciary. His view reflects a belief that this system could lead to partisan influence in judicial decisions, which is detrimental to fair governance.
Interviewer: Can you summarize the potential impact of these developments on the Mexican judiciary and public trust in the system?
Laura Ramirez: The implications are significant. If the reform is perceived as a means for the ruling party to maintain control over the judiciary, it could erode public trust. An independent and impartial judicial system is vital for democracy. If the public feels that judges cannot be elected free of political influence, it could lead to greater disenchantment with the political system overall.
Interviewer: Thank you, Laura, for your insightful analysis on this critical issue. It certainly raises questions about the future of judicial independence in Mexico.
Laura Ramirez: Thank you for having me. It’s a topic that deserves ongoing scrutiny as events develop.
Owering the public. What’s your take on his critique?
Laura Ramirez: Anaya’s words reflect a significant concern about the reform’s transparency and democratic integrity. If the selection process is heavily influenced by the ruling party, as he suggests, it fundamentally undermines the independence of the judiciary. The potential for political manipulation in appointing judges could erode public trust in the judicial system—a scenario we definitely want to avoid in a democratic society. It makes the reform seem more like a power grab than a genuine attempt at enhancing judicial accountability.
Interviewer: The PRI is also opposing this reform, arguing that it undermines the principle of the division of powers. How do you view their concerns?
Laura Ramirez: The PRI’s stance underscores a significant political divide regarding the reform’s intent and implications. Their argument about violating the division of powers is critical, as it speaks to maintaining checks and balances within the government. If one branch can exert excessive influence over another, it could lead to an imbalance detrimental to democracy. It’s essential that any reform genuinely aims to improve judicial functioning rather than consolidate power within the ruling party.
Interviewer: Given the ongoing controversies, what do you anticipate will happen next with this judicial reform in Mexico?
Laura Ramirez: I foresee continued debate and possibly legal challenges if the contradictions aren’t resolved satisfactorily. The public and opposition parties will likely keep pushing for greater transparency and accountability in the judicial selection process. Ultimately, the effectiveness of this reform will hinge on whether the government can address these concerns and whether they are willing to engage in a more inclusive dialogue with all stakeholders involved in the judicial system.
Interviewer: Thank you, Laura, for your insights on this important topic. It’s a complex situation that will undoubtedly evolve in the coming weeks and months.
Laura Ramirez: Thank you for having me! I look forward to seeing how it unfolds.
