Experts Warn of Potential Bias Among Proposed Magistrates
Five individuals have been identified as potential magistrates for the new Judicial Disciplinary Tribunal (TDJ) of Mexico’s Federal Judicial Power (PJF). However, experts in judicial matters—Laurence Pantin, Susana Camacho, and Cristian López—express concern that their close ties to the federal government could compromise the TDJ’s independence. Despite this, they suggest giving these magistrates the benefit of the doubt.
Backgrounds and Affiliations
- Celia Maya García: A Querétaro native, she holds law and public accounting degrees from the Autonomous University of Querétaro (UAQ). She also has a doctorate in law and three master’s degrees from the UAQ, focusing on criminal law, taxes, and fiscal law. Proposed by former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, she has served as a CJF councilor since September 19, 2023.
- Eva Verónica de Gyvés Zárate: Born in Ciudad Ixtepec, Oaxaca, she has a law degree from UNAM and master’s degrees in criminal law, taxes, and corporate law from various institutions. She served as a CJF councilor from November 20, 2019, to November 19, 2024, also proposed by López Obrador.
- Indira Isabel García Pérez: A law graduate from the University of Colima and master’s degree in corporate and educational law, she has expertise in taxes and public spending quality. She worked in the Colima State Audit Superior, Instituto de Transparencia y Protección de Datos Personales de Colima, and the state’s Controlling Office.
- Bernardo Bátiz Vázquez: A law graduate from UNAM and master’s degree in law from the Iberoamerican University, he served as a CJF councilor from December 4, 2019, to December 3, 2024. He previously worked as the capital’s Procurador de Justicia under López Obrador and was a secretary-general of the PAN from 1970 to 1983.
- Rufino H. León Tovar: A law graduate from UNAM and master’s degree in constitutional law, he is currently the President of the First Sala at the Federal Labor Conciliation and Arbitration Tribunal. He previously held positions in the Mexico City government, including Director General of Legal Affairs and Secretary of Mobility.
Experts’ Concerns
Pantin, Camacho, and López are worried that the proposed magistrates’ governmental affiliations could significantly impact their work. The TDJ’s broad and ambiguous investigation criteria raise concerns about potential arbitrary interpretations.
“The TDJ’s role could enable the government to control judges who make decisions against its interests… The ambiguity in defining professionalism, independence, impartiality, and excellence leaves room for arbitrary interpretation.”
Camacho explains that the TDJ will be the supreme court of the PJF, surpassing the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) and having the power to nullify ministers’ or any federal judge’s criteria. She notes that most proposed magistrates were suggested by the Executive Power Committee, including Maya, De Gyvés, and Bátiz, who were proposed by López Obrador.
López believes that if these experienced magistrates distance themselves from partisanship, they could lend technical legitimacy to the TDJ. However, their proximity to the government necessitates closer scrutiny of the tribunal’s operations, which is crucial for the judicial reform.
Key Questions and Answers
- What is the Tribunal de Disciplina Judicial (TDJ)? The TDJ is a new supreme court established under Mexico’s Federal Judicial Power to oversee the discipline of PJF personnel, including judges.
- Who are the proposed magistrates and their backgrounds? The proposed magistrates are Celia Maya García, Eva Verónica de Gyvés Zárate, Indira Isabel García Pérez, Bernardo Bátiz Vázquez, and Rufino H. León Tovar. They hold various law degrees and have experience in public service, academia, and legal practice.
- Why are experts concerned about the TDJ’s independence? Experts worry that the proposed magistrates’ close ties to the federal government could compromise the TDJ’s independence, potentially leading to biased decisions and arbitrary interpretations of investigation criteria.
