Judges of different levels criticize the Senate, but remain silent in the face of permanent abuse of the amparo
Books of yesterday and today
Ulpiano. To each his own in the judicial controversy
Teresa Gil
[email protected]
The legendary judge Domicio Ulpiano, from whose wisdom Roman law began, launched to the world his most complete legal precept: justice gives everyone their right. With that maxim, he would put in his place at this time, a judiciary so controversial, that even in situations as mentioned as the two years in favor of Minister Arturo Zaldívar, it showed the most ugly ear. None of the members of that power came out to defend the president of the Supreme Court, regardless of their position regarding those annexed years. Greed for positions was exhibited in many of them. Ministers and magistrates are upset not so much because of what they consider unconstitutional but because those two years take away everyone’s chances of rising to a power of very high salaries. Judicial protest from all sides, but they remained silent when the judges led by Juan Pablo Gómez Fierro, gave full protection in a few seconds. The other ear was taught by PAN members and citizens, whose tusk to manage partisan companies that have supported them for years, was conspicuous by its absence. And in evidence was the leader of the second Dante Delgado, by blaming the regime for “run over” and “invasion of powers”, when suddenly the Council of the judiciary came to the fore to clarify that the initiative to reform the Power Judicial was made by the set of ministers and it was known since 2020. The total ridi.
COSSÍO IN AN ILLEGAL LITIGATION AND ARTICLE 97 CENTER OF DISPUTE
Former Minister José Ramón Cossio Diaz, who is always in view when it comes to defending the right, and has done so in favor of Calderón above all, came with the Constitution in hand to emphasize the fourth paragraph of Article 97 that speaks of the non-reelection of presidents of the Court. But he evades, and has done so on other occasions, when he is reminded that as a former minister he cannot be a litigator because it is illegal. And he only answers that he does not litigate, “I only give advice when they ask me.” It is not the first time that Article 97, one of those dedicated to the Judiciary, is at the center of the hurricane. Years ago there was already a dispute about the belligerence that was given to certain ministers to investigate cases of violation of guarantees. The chapter on that power gives the ministers a long life of 15 years in office, but 97 is the one that monopolizes the greatest benefits, one of them the immobilization of salaries and the prevalence of the plenary session to be the one who names each four years to the President of the Court. That means they give the president four years to live without saying so. Hence, Troy burned with the two years that the Senate added to Zaldívar, by approving the two judicial laws that were addressed by the ministers. What has not been clear is what role the transitory articles have in regulatory legislation, in this case the Magna Carta. It is true that they are subject to specific uses and times, but a special intention in relation to their origin, they must have, in a regulatory law of the Magna Carta itself, for such an article to be added to them.
THE JUDICIARY GIVES A LOT TO TALK ABOUT, IN REALITY AND IN FICTION
The complete phrase of the great jurist Ulpiano is: “Justice is the constant and perpetual will to give each one his own right.” A book of his, The Institutions, largely nurtured the famous legal compilation that Justiniano later made. As justice is not always given as it should be, it is clear that the phrase has a degree of application according to the case. That is what arises in the novel La Judicatura by Fernando T. Mendoza (LD Books 2020) narrative of crime and corruption, in which the judiciary is addressed as an important part, in a sea of situations that lead to crime. In almost all adverse and extreme situations, the judiciary expresses itself not only in what concerns it from the crime and its investigation, but in different ways, some in “its twists and turns” and others in its “weaving and handling.” In the points of view of Orlando Ortiz in La Jornada Semanal and Guillermo Aviña Rivera in Mundo de hoy, both coincide in a novel that seems real so close to what happens to us and in the mastery with which Mendoza describes it; just as if it were a document. The novel has been very successful because it goes beyond the canons of the traditional detective novel, although the violence it exhumes leaves the shock of a reading that, despite this, is carried out “in one sitting”.
–
