What you need to know about the changes to Mexico’s Constitution that prohibit challenging the changes in court

MEXICO CITY — Mexico’s federal and state legislatures, all dominated by the Morena ruling partythey passed amendments to the Constitution that prohibit the courts from challenging any constitutional reform.

In the past, Mexican courts could decide whether a new reform violated existing precepts in the Constitution or international treaties that Mexico had signed.

But starting Friday, the changes will grant immunity from challenge to any amendment passed by two-thirds majorities in Congress and two-thirds of state legislatures.

The ruling Morena party says the courts should not be able to place themselves above elected bodies, but critics say the new measures weaken checks and balances and remove people’s recourse to argue their rights have been violated in court.

The Morena party, founded by former president Andrés Manuel López Obrador, has been angered by courts blocking some of its key policies.

For example, when López Obrador tried to pass laws that gave state utilities a majority market share, the courts ruled that violated the Constitution’s requirement of free competition. López Obrador left office on September 30, but fellow party member President Claudia Sheinbaum, who took office on October 1, vowed to continue all his policies.

Although it was not always clear whether judges could decide that parts of the Constitution violated other parts of the Constitution, it was also accepted that certain precepts, such as human rights or international treaties, stood above all other principles. It is now unclear whether there is any way – other than going to international tribunals – to appeal.

With two-thirds majorities in both houses of Congress, the ruling Morena party has gone through a whirlwind of constitutional changes, including the militarization of federal law enforcementsometimes within hours, with almost no discussion and very little time for lawmakers to even read the amendments.

Critics say Mexico’s judiciary — even if it has had problems with corruption, nepotism and inefficiency in the past — is the only branch of government Morena does not control, so the ruling party wants to weaken it.

That leaves whichever party controls the presidency and the legislative branch essentially able to approve any changes it wants, including the potential declaration of Mexico as a monarchy, according to Georgina de la Fuente of the non-governmental group the Latin American Observatory for Political Reforms.

The ruling party has already promoted a constitutional reform which will make all judges, up to the Supreme Court, stand for election.

Opponents say this will not only pave the way for party votes in judicial positions, but also open up the possibility for the country’s powerful drug cartels to have their own candidates elected as judges, because someone will have to pay for everything those election campaigns.

Critics are also upset by the minimum requirements for judicial candidates, including letters of recommendation from neighbors, a minimum 4 out of 5 average in law school and several years of undefined “legal experience.” This compares with the type of civil service promotion system currently in place, where judges are appointed after serving in support positions in the court for years.

Mexico’s Supreme Court could hear arguments against constitutional reform, but it’s unclear whether they will have reason to do so, and anyway, nearly all of the justices have said they will resign in August because of new rules that say judges must to be elected. .

The new reform also has a kind of retroactive effect, so it basically nullifies appeals filed by court employees who believe their rights have been violated by the reform of the election of judges. Many of these court employees have spent decades working in the civil service system, hoping to one day be judges.

The changes put Mexico in unfamiliar territory. In many countries, people can file appeals claiming that certain laws or constitutional amendments have violated their rights or interests. Although few court challenges have ever overturned constitutional amendments, they can affect the interpretation of those amendments. And while some countries, like the United States, elect judges at the lower or local level, almost no one has ever purged their slate of federal judges and held hundreds—perhaps thousands—of elections for new judges in a short period of time. time.

____

Follow AP coverage of Latin America and the Caribbean at