Background on the Judicial Reform and Key Figures
Eight months after the approval of a judicial reform in Mexico, federal lawmakers have voted to amend the Constitution to rectify contradictions identified in the process of electing the president of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN). The Commission of Constitutional Points played a central role in this decision, despite opposition votes.
Who is Involved?
- Comisión de Puntos Constitucionales: The Mexican legislative commission responsible for examining and proposing amendments to the Constitution.
- Opposition: Political groups that voted against the proposed amendment, including diputadas Claudia Ruiz Massieu Salinas (MC), Paulina Rubio Fernández (PAN), and Nadia Navarro Acevedo (PRI).
- Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN): The highest court in Mexico, whose president selection process was at the heart of the controversy.
Key Actions and Ideas
The approved project of the dictamen aims to rectify a contradiction in Article 97, paragraph six, of the Mexican Constitution regarding the election of the SCJN president. The original text stated that the President of the Supreme Court could not be reelected for the immediate subsequent term after being chosen every four years by the Pleno (the entire court) from among its members.
The new amendment seeks to eliminate this conflicting provision and align with Article 94 of the same judicial reform, which stipulates that the SCJN presidency should go to the justice with the most votes in the election.
The revised Constitutional provision now states that the SCJN will consist of nine members, both women and men, who will function as a Pleno. The presidency will rotate every two years based on the number of votes each candidate receives in the respective election, with the highest vote-getter assuming the presidency.
Lawmakers argue that this adjustment aims to resolve the constitutional anomaly surrounding the SCJN president’s election process and harmonize the democratic selection model for the Judicial Power, avoiding provisions open to interpretation.
Ongoing Controversy
Despite the amendment’s intentions, opposition lawmakers have criticized the reform. They argue that the contradiction is not merely a technical error but a symptom of hasty and improvised legislation. They also view it as evidence of the current government’s approach to lawmaking, characterized by haste, improvisation, and disregard for dialogue.
Key Questions and Answers
- What is the main issue being addressed? The contradiction in the judicial reform concerning the election process for the president of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN).
- What changes does the approved dictamen propose? The dictamen proposes to remove the conflicting provision from the Constitution and establish a two-year rotating presidency for the SCJN based on the highest number of votes in each election.
- Why is there opposition to the reform? Opposition lawmakers argue that the contradiction is a result of rushed and poorly considered legislation, reflecting broader concerns about the current government’s lawmaking practices.
The dictamen has been forwarded to the Permanent Committee of San Lázaro for further analysis and discussion.
