Professors and investigators consider that the court can analyze judicial reform; present an amicus curiae

A total of 50 professors and investigators from various parts of the world, experts in the field of constitutional law and other legal fields, presented an amicus curiae to the Maximum Court of the country, regarding the Supreme Court of Justice of the nation (SCJN) you can analyze the constitutional reform of the Poder Judicial de la Federación (PJF).

“In our opinion, we have heard the moment when the Mexican Supreme Court plans to hold a deep and abarcativa discussion on the question of controlling the constitutionality of constitutional reforms in Mexico, where it deciphers its current position and resolves the ambiguity of the jurisprudence histórica sobre el tema”, señalaron.

Yes, since the constitutional reform was approved and published for what is proposed to judges, magistrates and ministers of the judiciary, they are elected in the middle of the popular vote, both for officialism and for the opposition, it launched a debate on whether the Court could o no analyze constitutional reforms ya aprobadas.

To defend the reform, since President Claudia Sheinbaum’s press conference, he used Articles 39 of the Constitution to assert that “the people have at all times the inalienable right to modify or modify the form of their government” and Article 135 states that the Constitution may be added to or reformed “for the vote of two thirds of the individuals present.”

Therefore, it is assured that the Court has no responsibilities to analyze a constitutional reform and much less to eliminate it.

However, according to your writing by academics and investigators, if you consider that the Legislative Branch “is constitutionally authorized to amend the Constitution”, make sure that this is also “always and when you follow the rules of jurisdiction and the procedures which govern your actuary” and that, otherwise, the Court can establish a “constitutional review of constitutional reforms” or a “judicial review” to “evaluate compliance with the requirements” regarding constitutional reforms.

“(For this), we consider that there are various procedural procedures to complete this examination, among those that meet in actions of unconstitutionality, controversies, by way of the second paragraph of fraction XVII of article 11 of the Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial of the Federation and the amparo”.

This last point is important so that, during her press conferences, President Claudia Sheinbaum also declared that, according to article 61 of the Ley de Amparo, these judges are procedures “against additions or reforms to the political Constitution of the States”. United Mexican States.”

But the professors and investigators consider that there is no obstacle to what is stipulated in this article, but that “the control of the regularity of constitutional reforms is oriented, precisely, towards the distinction of sequences of action or legal omissions (“acts of authority”) which can validly evaluate the configurators of a constitutional reform”.

“There is no reason for the recent approval of the reform of the judiciary to have a direct effect on the conditions of independence, the capacity and the legitimacy of the judiciary, one of the aspects of public power, whose Position and functions are crucial for life. democratic, configure one of these scenarios”, señalan.

Amicus curiae or “friends of the court” is a remedy that contemplates the Constitution among certain people who are not directly related to a judge and who can present a “technical opinion” on a transcendent matter, for judges, the magistrates or this case of ministers. results can be made based on various perspectives of a problem.

Thus, this appeal is kept in relation to the constitutional controversy 286/2024, interpuesta por el gobierno de Guanajuato; l’action inconstitucionalidad 164/2024, interpuesta por el Partido Acción Nacional (PAN); as well as the consultations of 4/2024, 5/2024, 6/2024 and 7/2024, interpuestas por trabajadores, jueces et magistrados qui buscan attack the judicial reform.

Among the docents and investigators who present the amicus curiae before the Court, there is the academic Roberto Gargarella, a prestigious Argentine jurist; Rodrigo Uprimmy, Colombian jurist from the National University of Colombia; Agustina Ramón Michel from the University of Palermo and Paola Bergallo, from the University Torcuato Di Tella.

Academics and researchers launch against GN reform

In their writing, the academics and investigators also launch against the reform so that the work of the National Guard at the Secretariat of National Defense (Sedena) is concrete, in order to ensure that the Court can also analyze this reform procedure .

“Although this friend is not the subject of legal analysis in detail, we do not want to say that there are various procedural procedures to eliminate the analysis of the constitutionality of constitutional reforms, whenever they need of legitimacy and opportunity. they must be interpreted, as in any other case, in accordance with the principle of action and with perspectives to ensure the highest protection for people,” he said.

Yes, with the reform of Article 129 regarding the National Guard, the Congress of the Union eliminated the part which indicated that “(in) time of peace, no military authority can exercise more functions than those which have an exact connection with military discipline” by a text which indicates that “in times of peace, the military authority can exercise more functions than those which have a provision in this Constitution and the laws which belong to it”.

“It is about trastoca a fundamental constitutional element and a step towards a civic-military republic incompatible with the democratic-constitutional marco established in the Constitution of 1917,” said the academics and investigators.