The legislative reform that orders the disappearance of 13 trusts from the federal Judicial Branch has been stopped indefinitely, because Two Courts have already granted definitive suspensions in the Amparo Trials promoted by employees of that power, including judges and magistrates, which would imply partiality on the part of the officials who issued these measures, according to the Mexican Presidency.
“In a quick, unusual manner and without hearing all the parties in the trial, the twelfth district judge in the state of Chihuahua, Juan Fernando Luévano Ovalle, granted the definitive suspension” of the reform approved by Congress last October, which “indefinitely prevents the Federal Treasury from using the resources,” the Presidency lamented in a statement.
In turn, the judge Elizabeth Trejo Galan, head of the Ninth District Court in Administrative Matters in Mexico City, also granted the definitive suspension in the Amparo Trial filed by the National Association of Circuit Magistrates and District Judges of the Judicial Branch of the Federation (Jufed).
With these two rulings, the bodies that make up the Federal Judiciary Council (CJF) will not be able to extinguish the trusts, as ordered in the reform of article 224 of the Organic Law of the Judicial Branch of the Federation, which came into force on October 28.
In addition, the Ministry of Finance and Public Credit and the Treasury of the Federation (Tesofe) will also not be able to use the resources that are administered in these instruments, which total at least 15,000 million pesos.
“Due to judicial ethics, the judges should have refrained from hearing the amparo proceedings and appeals filed against the extinction of the trusts,” considered the Presidency. He added that the promoters of the amparos “They should not have put their merely economic interests above the well-being of the population of Acapulco.”
As will be remembered, at the proposal of the president Andrés Manuel López Obrador, It was intended that the money from these trusts, after passing from the Judiciary to Tesofe, would be used to help people who were affected by Hurricane Otis in the state of Guerrero.
Judicial bias?
The presidency emphasized that the precautionary measures granted by Judge Luévano Ovalle and Judge Trejo Galán violate “the principle of law.” nemo iudex in sua causa (the judge cannot be a party in his own case)”, which establishes that the judges cannot hear or resolve controversies in which they may have some personal interest.
Likewise, “Article 17 of the Constitution, as well as paragraphs 8.1 and 25.1 of the American Convention on Human Rights, enshrine judicial impartiality as a necessary requirement of the rule of law, where even appearances have great importance,” he underlines. the document from the office of the head of the federal Executive Branch.
For this reason, the presidency requests that the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation be the one to definitively resolve these protections, exercising its power of attraction.
In this case, as the head of the Ninth District Court in Administrative Matters in Mexico City, Elizabeth Trejo Galan, issued the definitive suspension with general effects, as it had already done in the provisional suspension, All employees of the Judicial Branch and not only the members of the Jufed, benefit from the ruling.
Although it might be thought that Judge Trejo Galán would be benefiting from the definitive suspension that she herself issued, as the presidency accuses, in reality this is not the case, since the suspensions – provisional or definitive – in the Amparo Trial are only precautionary measures with those in which no right is created, which serve to preserve the subject matter of the trial.
That is to say, if the suspensions were denied, and the resources of the trusts were transferred to the Treasury of the Federation, when the substantive rulings of these protections are issued, neither the money nor the financial instruments that are being challenged today would no longer exist, which that would make Amparo lose its reason for being.
Furthermore, the suspension, even though he is one of the main figures of the Amparo Trial in Mexico, is only a temporary measure which ceases to have effect when the substantive rulings of the same trial are issued. In fact, It is possible that the judges will grant a definitive suspension, and in the end deny protection in the sentence.
What role will the Court play?
The definitive suspensions that stop the extinction of the trusts of the Judicial Branch of the Federation can be challenged by the Presidency and by Congress through Review Appeals, which must be resolved by the Collegiate Courts. But it is also feasible for the Supreme Court to attract these resources, as requested by the Executive’s office.
In fact, the highest court in the country will be the one that -predictably- will define the criteria to be followed with regard to trusts, since opposition legislators plan to file an Unconstitutionality Action against the same reform in the coming days. .
According to article 105 of the Constitution, the Court is the only one empowered to resolve this type of actions, so it would not be strange if it issued an agreement ordering judges and magistrates to stop issuing their rulings in this issue, until the demands of deputies or senators opposed to Morena are resolved in the plenary session of the highest court.
MORE NEWS:
Surya Palacios Journalist and lawyer, specialist in legal and human rights analysis. She has been a reporter, radio host and editor.