Introduction to Minister Hugo Aguilar and the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN)
Minister Hugo Aguilar, the President of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN), has recently sparked controversy with his consultations aimed at determining whether the “new” SCJN can review and reverse a previous ruling issued by one of its former chambers.
Understanding the Consultations
According to the SCJN’s Secretariat General of Acuerdos, two consultations (1/2025 and 2/2025) have been raised to address the same issue. These consultations stem from two direct amparo cases: 26/2022 (Wallace case) and 35/2022 (indemnization for judicial error). The first consultation resulted from the Wallace case, while the second relates to the denial of indemnization by the First Chamber in the 35/2022 case.
The Resource of Review
The resource of review, as per law, allows for challenging a sentence resulting from a direct amparo. However, this resource functions exceptionally when the amparo is resolved by a Circuit College and the individual questions the constitutionality of any interpreted norm in the sentence. The resource of review has only been applicable to SCJN reviews of sentences issued by lower-ranking Circuit Colleges.
Minister Aguilar’s Objective
In this instance, Minister Aguilar has submitted two consultations to explore the possibility of reversing two SCJN rulings originally issued by his predecessors. Essentially, Aguilar seeks to have the Supreme Court reassess and alter decisions that were previously finalized by the same judicial body just months ago.
Implications and Concerns
This endeavor is concerning as it jeopardizes the fundamental principle of “res judicata” or “thing adjudicated,” which acknowledges the finality of sentences that cannot be appealed since all legal avenues have been exhausted. The risk is evident even to non-legal professionals, as the loss of certainty in a definitive judgment would render compliance with that judgment uncertain. The party deemed victorious in a lawsuit would also lack assurance, as a judicial act could potentially alter their legal standing despite the case’s conclusion.
Moreover, the formulation of these consultations suggests an intent to open the door for overturning previous ministers’ resolutions, appearing more like a form of judicial retaliation to assert dominance. This contradicts the ancient Roman jurists’ principle, “judex non debet esse facilis ad credendum nec ad vindictam ferendam” – the judge should not be too quick to believe nor inclined towards vengeance.
Key Questions and Answers
- What are the consultations about? The consultations (1/2025 and 2/2025) aim to determine if the current SCJN can review and reverse rulings issued by its former chambers.
- What is the resource of review? The resource of review, as per law, allows challenging a sentence from a direct amparo resolved by a Circuit College. It’s only applicable to SCJN reviews of sentences issued by lower-ranking Circuit Colleges.
- Why is Minister Aguilar’s action controversial? Critics argue that his consultations threaten the principle of “res judicata,” undermining the finality of judgments and potentially causing legal uncertainty.
- What are the implications of these consultations? These actions could erode trust in the judicial system, as parties may question the permanence of legal decisions.
