MEXICO CITY.- The plenary session of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) determined that the PRI, MR y Citizen Movement have legitimacy legal for challenge judicial reformthrough the action of unconstitutionality.
This was established this Tuesday by a majority of eight votes during the debate on the demands against the judicial reform, which has not yet reached the bottom of the minister’s project. Juan Luis González Alcántarawhich proposes to partially invalidate the legislation.
During the discussion of this section, González Alcántara assured that the political parties mentioned They met the established requirements in article 105, second section, Section F, of the Federal Constitution, since all are duly registered in the National Electoral Institute and those who signed the demands are effectively the legal representatives.
#lastHour
With eight votes in favor and three against, the nation’s supreme court validates the legitimacy of political parties to challenge the reform of the judicial power #SCJN pic.twitter.com/TXuCmtD57F— Radio Búfalo MX (@minusplusver) November 5, 2024
Minister Loretta Ortiz says that they cannot challenge judicial reform
In contrast, the minister Loretta Ortiz Ahlf He assured that political parties lack legitimacy to promote actions of this type against constitutional norms.
“The second section of article 105 of the Constitution allows unconstitutionality actions against general norms, not against the Constitution itself.”
“In addition, the recent reform on constitutional supremacypublished on October 31, does nothing more than recognize a prohibition that already existed, it clarifies that we are expressly excluded from this competition,” he indicated.
And he added: “On the other hand, in relation to the issue of the constitutional Decree published on October 31, for me the action of unconstitutionality that is presented today is inadmissible, even without the reform that has been called constitutional supremacy, more Beyond the file, if it is found in the cases established by the reform of October 31, the truth is that the action of unconstitutionality is inadmissible under the design of our Constitution, even before the reform.
Read: “Last chance” for the SCJN to invalidate the judicial reform: this is what experts argue
Related
#PRI #PAN #legal #legitimacy #challenge #judicial #reform #SCJN
**Interview with Legal Expert Dr. Ana Torres on the Supreme Court’s Ruling Regarding Judicial Reform**
**Editor:** Thank you for joining us today, Dr. Torres. Can you start by explaining the significance of the Supreme Court’s ruling that the PRI, MR, and Citizen Movement have the legitimacy to challenge the judicial reform?
**Dr. Torres:** Thank you for having me. This ruling is crucial as it upholds the right of these political parties to challenge judicial reforms that they consider unconstitutional. It reinforces the principle that political parties, particularly those registered with the National Electoral Institute, have a voice in the judiciary and can litigate against laws they believe violate the Constitution.
**Editor:** The plenary session was decided by a majority of eight votes to three. What does this vote indicate about the divisions within the Supreme Court regarding this issue?
**Dr. Torres:** The narrow margin suggests a significant ideological divide among the justices. The majority appears to support judicial engagement with political parties, while the dissenting opinions might reflect concerns about judicial activism or the implications of political involvement in judicial matters. This could influence future rulings and the ongoing dialogue between branches of government.
**Editor:** Minister Juan Luis González Alcántara made a statement concerning compliance with Article 105 of the Federal Constitution. How does this legal framework support the court’s decision?
**Dr. Torres:** Article 105 provides a clear framework for how constitutional challenges can be made in Mexico. González Alcántara’s assertion that the parties met all necessary requirements, including being legally registered and having authorized representatives, underscores the procedural legitimacy of their challenge. This strengthens the court’s decision and ensures adherence to constitutional protocols.
**Editor:** As discussions continue on the reform, what are potential next steps for the involved parties and the Supreme Court?
**Dr. Torres:** The next steps likely involve the court’s detailed examination of the judicial reform, particularly González Alcántara’s project to partially invalidate the legislation. The involved parties will need to prepare their arguments as the court analyzes the legal merits of the constitutional challenge. This process could bring about significant changes to the judicial landscape in Mexico based on the court’s final decision.
**Editor:** Thank you, Dr. Torres, for your insights on this important topic. We’ll continue to follow the developments closely.
**Dr. Torres:** My pleasure. Thank you for covering this critical issue.
