The constitutional reform of Mexico City did not eliminate the right to the protection of private property, as various publications on social media point out, but rather reiterated that this right will be governed according to what is stated in the federal Constitution.
On Monday, September 2, the Head of Government, Martí Batres, presented the decree that reformed Article 3 of the Magna Carta of Mexico City, which received criticism for considering that it violates the ownership of property in the capital of the country.
Specialists consulted by El Sabueso explained that the modification only refers to the interpretation of the protection of property being made in accordance with what is stated in the federal Constitution, which establishes the guidelines for local constitutions. Here we explain what changed and the implications it may have:
What was reformed in the Constitution of Mexico City?
The reform modified Article 3, which sets out the guiding principles to be followed in Mexico City. In the previous version, paragraph 2 of that article stated: “Mexico City assumes as principles: (…) respect for private property.”
The new wording establishes “respect for property under the same terms as Article 27 of the Constitution “Policy of the United Mexican States”.
In response to this, various analysts and opposition politicians spread the version that private ownership of the CDMX Constitution was put at risk, which is false.
On the one hand, that right is recognized in the federal Constitution itselfwhich is why it cannot be eliminated by local regulation. On the other hand, private property is recognized in articles 10 and 16 of the local Constitution, as mentioned in the reform opinion.
Yuri Pavón, an academic at the UNAM Faculty of Law, explained to El Sabueso that the reform does not directly affect private property, and the means of defense that exist in the Constitution are maintained.
“It is being unifying the position of the federal Constitution with respect to the local Constitution. That would imply that we would not have any kind of grievance. And in fact, it does say that it is recognizing private property in terms of the Federal Constitution,” he said.
From his perspective, the biggest change is that local government is empowered to define the modalities of private property dictated by the public interest, that is, particular limitations or restrictions may be established on that right.
Article 27 defines private property as the transfer of ownership of a good by the Nation to a private individual. “The Nation shall at all times have the right to impose on private property the modalities dictated by the public interest,” it adds.
In addition, Pavón explained, this article recognises expropriation as a method to suppress private property, which must be for reasons of public utility and, if carried out, compensation must be offered for the expropriated property.
Separately, attorney Carla Escoffié said that this change is just a reiteration of the application of Article 27 of the federal Constitution for the protection of property, and where private property is recognized.
“Specifically, it changes absolutely nothing. Anything that could tell you ‘this opens the door to…’ would not make sense, because what the reform does is refer to federal article 27. So, anything that in theory could potentially or not be done with this reform, would be things that could already be done with article 27,” Escoffié explained.
The lawyer also pointed out that the constitutions of the federative entities cannot eliminate rights that are established in the federal Constitution.
The specialist criticized the reform for considering it unnecessary, and in light of the misinformation that has arisen in this regard, she called on the head of government to clarify the meaning of the reform.
Is the reform related to expropriations?
Following the dissemination of this reform, social media users commented on the publication of the head of Government, Martí Batres, in X, that this was related to the eventual expropriation of private property.
But the reform has no relation to this, since expropriations are already contemplated in article 27 of the general Constitution and the Expropriation Lawwhich establishes the guidelines for these procedures.
Escoffié also pointed out that expropriations are usually carried out through negotiations, meaning that the owner is notified in advance of the interest in his property and a price for compensation is agreed upon before the process begins.
“These are long processes that can be challenged in court. So, it is not in the government’s interest to go ahead without a prior agreement, because if it is already long, an expropriation process in which it will also have to litigate with the person. And let’s not even talk about the political and media cost of that is not in its interest,” he commented.
On the other hand, the reform does not modify the right of citizens to defend themselves against expropriation, such as amparo trials, or nullity trials if the damage to property is derived from a court ruling, Pavón explained.
