Background on Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo and Her Proposed Reform
Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo, the Chief Executive of Mexico City, has proposed a reform to the Ley de Amparo. This law is crucial as it protects citizens’ rights by allowing them to challenge administrative acts that infringe upon their constitutional rights. The reform, however, has drawn criticism from legal experts at the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM).
Experts’ Concerns Regarding the Proposed Reform
Juvenal Lobato and Gerardo Hurtado, constitutionalist experts from UNAM, assert that the reform is more restrictive and less beneficial. They acknowledge only one positive aspect: the digitalization, regulation, and modernization of online amparo proceedings that have existed since 2013.
Digitalization and its Limitations
Lobato: “Based on my experience, it’s a positive step to regulate or establish clear rules for online amparo proceedings. However, I am concerned about the rest of the reform as it aims to strengthen the federal executive in policy decisions, making them unquestionable.”
Hurtado: “While the proposal regarding electronic amparo proceedings is positive, it’s already established. The reform merely disguises its true intent: to progressively limit the effects of suspending the contested act.”
Restricting Suspension Powers
Hurtado explains that the reform aims to limit the effects of suspending the contested act. The governed, through amparo, seeks to revoke, modify, or annul an act of authority. However, while waiting for a resolution, they often request cautious measures from the amparo judge to maintain the status quo until the amparo case is resolved.
The reform, according to Hurtato, is restrictive as it gradually diminishes the scope of suspensions that can currently be granted through amparo promotion.
Impact on Citizens
Lobato is concerned about the regressive nature of the amendment, particularly regarding legitimate interest and restrictions on suspension grants. He laments that now, when a court order isn’t followed, the fine will be imposed on the authority rather than the individuals or officials as it is today.
“This will create reluctance among authorities to comply, as they might believe they won’t be penalized while the authority itself will face fines. This is a significant setback in enforcing court orders,” Lobato stated.
Controversial Bloqueo de Cuentas Provision
Regarding the improper suspension against the Unidad de Inteligencia Financiera’s (UIF) account blocking, Lobato acknowledges the authorities’ arguments but warns of potential harm to innocent taxpayers.
“This measure might affect genuine individuals with no money laundering issues, causing them financial strain and legal battles before their case is heard,” Lobato said.
He recognizes that some taxpayers might misuse the system, but believes the proposed solution could inadvertently penalize many without necessarily addressing money laundering concerns.
“Tiros de precisión, no escopetazos”
Lobato and Hurtado emphasize the need for precise measures rather than broad, discretionary authority-driven policies. They argue that the reform ultimately strengthens the federal executive’s power, undermining citizens’ rights.
Key Questions and Answers
- Q: What is the main concern of legal experts regarding Sheinbaum Pardo’s amparo law reform?
A: Experts, including Juvenal Lobato and Gerardo Hurtado from UNAM, argue that the reform is overly restrictive and primarily benefits the federal executive by limiting citizens’ ability to challenge administrative acts.
- Q: How does the reform affect online amparo proceedings?
A: The reform modernizes and regulates online amparo proceedings, which have existed since 2013. However, critics argue that this aspect is the only positive change in an otherwise restrictive proposal.
- Q: What are the implications of limiting suspension powers?
A: Limiting suspension powers, as proposed, gradually diminishes the scope of currently granted suspensions through amparo promotion. This could weaken citizens’ ability to challenge unfavorable administrative acts.
- Q: How might the bloqueo de cuentas provision impact taxpayers?
A: The provision could inadvertently penalize innocent taxpayers by imposing fines on authorities instead of individuals or officials when court orders aren’t followed.
- Q: What do experts say about the need for precise measures in the reform?
A: Lobato and Hurtado stress the importance of targeted measures rather than broad, discretionary authority-driven policies. They argue that the current reform ultimately strengthens the federal executive’s power, undermining citizens’ rights.
