Origins in France and Implementation in Mexico
During Mexico’s independence era, the country adopted the French model of a public prosecutor or ministry dedicated to defending the revolution and the French people’s interests, specifically from the National Assembly. Until 1857, the constitution began to shift this general prosecutor, creating a federal government-dependent procuratoria alongside the public prosecutor’s office. The aim was to safeguard the interests of both the accused and victims without judicial or local/municipal police interference, which were prone to hastily seeking culprits and wrongfully accusing individuals for political reasons.
Constitutional Debates and Establishment
In the 17 constitution, heated debates ensued regarding whether this prosecutor or procurator should be independent from the federal executive or subject to it with clear limitations. The latter was chosen, aiming to ensure that federal procurators or public prosecutors could counter local authorities’ threats, who often tried to manipulate disputes by arbitrarily blaming local residents.
Institutional Evolution and Recent Reform
The approval of Articles 21 and 102 in the Constituent Congress solidified the Ministry of Justice as an Executive institution (General Procurator’s Office), separating the power to investigate and prosecute crimes (MP) from the judicial power.
The institution functioned with mixed success and numerous shortcomings. To monitor its activities, a human rights commission was established along with other institutional bodies until the 2014 reform, which transformed it into an autonomous prosecutor’s office with specific functions and tasks that it has failed to fulfill since its December 2018 inception.
Recent Controversy: The Interoceanic Train Derailment
Background: On December 28, 2025, the Interoceanic Train derailed in Oaxaca, resulting in 14 fatalities. The Federal Prosecutor’s General Office (FGR) has linked three key crew members to the incident.
- Felipe de Jesús Díaz Gómez (a.k.a Felipe de Jesús “N”): Identified as the principal train driver (also holding the position of wayman). He was arrested in Chiapas and accused of speeding (65 km/h in a 50 km/h zone).
- Ricardo Mendoza: Supervisor and head of dispatchers, accused of negligence or responsibility in managing rail traffic at the time of the accident.
- A third technical crew member: Reported in investigations as an additional driver or dispatcher, facing charges of negligent homicide and reckless injury.
According to the FGR, these three crew members lacked valid federal railway licenses at the time of the accident. The primary cause, confirmed by the black box examination, was excessive speed on a sharp curve between Nizanda and Chivela.
Underlying Issues
Investigations have revealed several problems, including worn-out wheel treads on both train cars and locomotives (exceeding the internationally accepted 50-year limit), outdated track components (almost half were from Porfirio Daz’s era) and poor-quality ballast provided by contractors. Moreover, there were no fire extinguishers, first-aid kits, or effective communication systems.
Blame Game: The FGR now seeks to hold the most vulnerable crew member accountable, shifting responsibility away from higher-ranking individuals like President’s son, train constructors, contractors, maintenance engineers, and the managing company. This approach echoes early 19th-century justice practices, highlighting the current predicament.
