San Lázaro will modify contradiction in judicial reform

The Chamber of Deputies will have to modify the recently approved reform to the Constitution regarding the Judicial Branch of the Federation, because Morena and its allies approved in constitutional article 94 that the president of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation be the candidate have more votes in the 2025 election, but this contradicts the current mechanism in article 97, where the designation is in charge of the ministers themselves.

This morning, the coordinator of Morena, Ricardo Monreal, recognized the antinomy and announced that an initiative will be presented to change the Constitution again, although he did not specify whether article 97 will be eliminated or only the wording will be changed.

First, Monreal Ávila maintained that the contradiction between the two articles would be resolved through the reform of the laws on electoral matters, and with the method of selecting candidates through the evaluation committees provided for in the reform.

Article 97, third paragraph of the Constitution, recently modified by both chambers of Congress and endorsed by the majority of state congresses, provides:

“The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation will be made up of nine members, ministers, and will function as a whole. Its presidency will be renewed every two years on a rotating basis depending on the number of votes that each candidate obtains in the respective election, with the presidency corresponding to those who obtain the highest vote.

However, article 97, which was not modified and is therefore in force, establishes: “Every four years, the plenary session will elect from among its members the president of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, who cannot be re-elected.” for the immediate period thereafter.

With this mechanism, the current president of the Court, Norma Piña, was elected.

This morning, prior to the start of the ordinary session, Monreal was asked which of the two articles will elect the president of the Court.

He responded: “We are going to resolve that soon, with a reform to the Constitution clarifying that. It’s going to be done. It is being studied. We are looking at it in a working group because these types of things that arise from this new mechanism are being resolved.

-Did they make a mistake because of the rush?

-No no. They are contradictions that the Constitution sometimes prevents and the legislator has the obligation to permanently update them. That’s our job. We are a Permanent Constituent.

-When will this reform be done?

-Soon, soon. Let’s try. We are reviewing the entire legislative package on justice. We are gathered, we are a permanent constituent, we are the reforming power. You can present yourself at any time.

-However, the Constitution cannot be modified three months before the electoral process begins.

-It has not yet started, it is part of a process that is prevented in the transitional periods, this period is unique, it is initial, it is anticipated and resolved through transitional periods, which we can modify or modify constitutional articles.

-But the process has already begun, the INE even held a ceremony.

-It begins on the 16th with the issuance of the call (for the election). What Congress is doing is reforming the secondary law regarding the Judiciary. It had two alternatives, that the call be issued whose deadline is October 16 and another that before the call was issued, secondary matters would be legislated. Neatness was constitutionally preferred. And all these aspects will come in the call.

-Did they not notice the contradiction or did they forget to modify the 97?

-Adjustments will be made, but any contradiction or position that generates uncertainty or lack of certainty will be avoided.