24/7 Live News Portal

This was the session of the SCJN on consultation to prosecute former presidents

The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) experienced one of the most anticipated and heated sessions of the year in which the ministers completely transformed the popular consultation proposed to prosecute the former presidents of the Republic.

Minutes before 12:00 hours, the ministers began the analysis of the matter of the consultation raised by President Andrés Manuel López Obrador to prosecute the last five former presidents.

The draft resolution was drawn up by Minister Luis María Aguilar Morales, who proposed declaring the consultation unconstitutional considering that it violates human rights and that the Constitution prohibits submitting to the public for consideration the fulfillment of the obligations of the procurement authorities and Justice administration.

At the beginning, Minister President Arturo Zaldívar explained the dynamics of the discussion and warned that if the members of the Plenary in majority voted to declare the matter of the consultation constitutional, then they could enter the study of the content of the question posed by President López Obrador .

Minister Aguilar Morales briefly explained his project, which was announced by the Court since last September 24.

In a speech that lasted about half an hour, he established his position against Minister Aguilar Morales’s project and recalled when the Court did not support his position on the responsibility of the Mexican State in the ABC case and called on his colleagues not to miss this new opportunity.

“When we exercise the review powers that the constitution assigns us, we must be very careful not to unduly frustrate the objectives of a consultation,” Minister Zaldívar said.

“I would hope that today the Court will not miss the opportunity to assume, with historical responsibility, its role in the protection of the human rights of political participation. It is not our role to be a closed door, but rather the bridge that allows all people to intervene in the great national discussions, with full respect for the entirety of our constitutional framework. “

Minister Alfredo Gutiérrez Ortiz Mena indicated that if he reconsidered the interpretation of the matter of the popular consultation, then he would vote against the project.

He explained that for him, the matter of popular consultation should not be understood as binding on the powers of the Attorney General of the Republic or the country’s judges, but on the discretionary powers of the federal Executive to investigate irregularities of past administrations.

The ministers Margarita Ríos Farjat and Yasmín Esquivel Mossa spoke out for the constitutionality of the consultation.

Surprisingly, Minister Alberto Pérez Dayán, who regularly supports Aguilar Morales’ projects, spoke out against the speaker’s proposal.

Juan Luis González Alcántara Carrancá and Jorge Mario Pardo Rebolledo followed the example of Gutiérrez Ortiz Mena, so they initially left their votes undefined.

It was the turn of Minister Javier Laynez Potisek who began by saying that it does not coincide with the arguments of those who spoke in favor of the consultation and those who have asked to rethink the matter of the same to adjust it to the Constitution.

“Constitutional judges are not appointed to be or to gain popularity, the executive and legislative branches are,” Laynez said.

He even took the time to refute each and every one of the arguments that he considered did not conform to the protection of human rights that the Court must carry out.

The ministers Fernando Franco González Salas and Norma Lucía Piña Hernández followed Laynez’s example, with which it seemed that the scale was taking on a new balance and that Aguilar Morales’ project would be triumphant.

However, there were three votes to be defined.

Minister Zaldívar requested the issuance of the final votes and in minutes, all hope was lost when two of the three ministers who conditioned their position on a rethinking of the matter of the consultation, changed their minds.

Alfredo Gutiérrez Ortiz Mena and Juan Luis González Alcántara Carrancá joined the bloc that voted against Aguilar Morales’ project.

Jorge Mario Pardo Rebolledo considered that, because the interpretation of the matter of the query was not reconsidered, it is not constitutional.

However, he won the yes to the consultation and the ministers took a break to discuss how the question would be.

Among the main arguments to rephrase the question was that López Obrador’s proposal directly pointed to five former presidents and there were positions because the matter was not criminal but administrative.

Consequently, from a direct question to prosecute or not the last five former presidents, the ministers concluded with a deflated question, ambiguous and without further definition.

“Do you agree or not that the pertinent actions be carried out, in accordance with the constitutional and legal framework, to undertake a process of clarification of the political decisions made in recent years by political actors, aimed at guaranteeing justice and the rights of the probable victims? “