The extension of the mandate of the presiding minister of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN), Arturo Zaldívar, will be studied by an amparo judge.
The Seventh District Judge in Administrative Matters in Mexico City admitted the first amparo claim filed against the thirteenth transitory article of the reform to the Organic Law of the Federal Judicial Power (PJF), which establishes the extension of the mandate. of Zaldívar Lelo de Larrea and of the position of the members of the Council of the Federal Judiciary (CJF).
Upon admitting the claim, the judge called for the next August 4 to hold the constitutional hearing in which she will decide whether or not to grant the amparo.
This article has been criticized because it is considered to be unconstitutional because it contravenes the period established by article 94 of the Magna Carta for the presidency of the Court.
Last week, the Minister President Zaldívar Lelo de Larrea submitted the constitutionality of this article to the full consultation of the SCJN.
EL UNIVERSAL reported that the matter was referred to Minister José Fernando Franco González Salas, dean of the Court.
It will be Minister González Salas who must decide whether or not to admit the unconstitutionality action presented by the opposition in the Senate against this reform, also known as the Zaldívar Law.
In the project to resolve the query raised by Zaldívar Lelo de Larrea, Minister González Salas must resolve five questions. In these, the minister-president pointed out that if the extension of his mandate is unconstitutional, what determination should the plenary adopt?
If it is possible for the ministers to rule on the constitutionality of general norms that may affect judicial independence and autonomy outside of a means of conventional constitutional control, such as an action of unconstitutionality, and that it be determined how many votes are required to clarify the matter ( simple or qualified majority); the article of the extension is or is not constitutional and, if it turns out to be contrary to the Magna Carta, what effects will the resolution of the Court have.
– .
