In a session marked by debate and disagreement, the Senate of the Republic approved, in general, with 69 votes in favor and 42 against, the reform of the Amparo Law. This measure, which seeks to modify the process for resolving amparo lawsuits, generated divided opinions both inside and outside the legislative chamber.
The main objective of the reform project is to avoid what was demonized as “the dictatorship of the toga”, as explained by Senator Ricardo Monreal Ávila. The aim is to reduce the discretion of judges in the application of suspensions, especially in cases that involve the unconstitutionality of general norms.
One of the main modifications contemplated in the opinion is that, in amparo trials that resolve the unconstitutionality of general norms, the suspensions issued will not establish general effects in any case. This measure aims to guarantee respect for the separation of powers and the principle of presumption of constitutionality of laws.
The debate in the Senate revolved around the elimination of the possibility that citizens can defend themselves against decisions by authority, according to members of opposition parties such as the PAN, PRI, PRD and MC.
They argued that this reform could unprotect the most vulnerable citizens by limiting their access to federal justice.
For her part, the president of the Justice Commission, Senator Olga Sánchez Cordero, defended the reform, ensuring that rights are not being affected or there is a regression in guarantees. She stated that the goal is to align regulatory laws with the Constitution and avoid discretion in the application of suspensions by judges.
The dissident voices did not wait. Senator Julen Rementería del Puerto of the PAN presented a motion to suspend the ruling, arguing that the reform represents an abuse and limits access to federal justice. However, the motion was rejected by the Plenary with 67 votes against and 43 in favor.
The discussion also involved opinions from various political and social sectors. While some Morena senators defended the measure as progress in the fight against judicial discretion, others criticized the possible violation of citizen rights and the concentration of power in the hands of the Executive.
After general approval, the senators went on to discuss the reservations to modify the opinion, presented by senators from different parliamentary factions.
The reform of the Amparo Law was returned to the Chamber of Deputies to continue with its legislative process.
