Mexico’s outgoing president has proposed and is advocating for a constitutional amendment that could fundamentally alter the country’s judicial system. Meanwhile, the president-elect, who will take office in October, seems to support the amendment but has expressed her willingness to discuss specific issues. The final composition of the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies will be known in August, following the resolution of pending judicial challenges. This final composition is relevant, as constitutional amendments require a two-thirds majority vote from the members of congress who are present at the moment of voting, and the approval of the majority of the federal entities’ legislatures (local states and Mexico City).
- Election of Judges Through Direct Vote
The current system for selecting judges in Mexico emphasizes capacity and merit, as judges pursue an institutional judicial career and are appointed through competitive examinations. One of the major changes is the proposal to elect justices, district judges, circuit magistrates, and even local judges through direct vote. This move, presented as a measure against corruption, could potentially weakened the judiciary’s independence by making judges susceptible to popular and political pressures. Judicial independence is paramount to the rule of law; direct elections could compromise this independence, as judges might feel pressured to make popular decisions rather than legally sound ones. - New Structure of Mexico’s Supreme Court
Under the proposed reform, the number of justices in the Supreme Court will be reduced from 11 to 9, and their compensation would be capped at the level of the president’s salary. The term duration for justices will be shortened from 15 years to 12 years. Currently, Mexico’s Supreme Court operates with two chambers, each with different substantive competencies. The proposed reform will eliminate this dual-chamber system, consolidating all justices into a single plenum. - Judicial Disciplinary Tribunal
The Judicial Council of Mexico currently oversees the administration, supervision, and discipline of the federal judiciary, excluding the Supreme Court. Under the proposed reform, the existing Judiciary Council would be replaced by two new entities: the Judicial Administration Body and the Judicial Disciplinary Tribunal. The Judicial Administration Body would manage administrative functions and regulatory matters, while the Judicial Disciplinary Tribunal, comprised of five magistrates elected by popular vote, would be tasked with investigating, conducting proceedings, and, if necessary, sanctioning public servants within the federal judiciary. These sanctions, final and unappealable, would apply to actions or omissions deemed contrary to the law, public interest, or proper administration of justice. However, the broad and ambiguous language used to define such actions and omissions raises significant concerns; this vagueness could result in arbitrary enforcement, potentially undermining the principles of fairness and legal certainty that are fundamental to the justice system. - Restriction on Suspensions and General Effects in Constitutional Challenges
The proposed amendment aims to ensure that the admission of constitutional controversies or actions of unconstitutionality shall not, under any circumstances, result in the suspension of the challenged norms. Additionally, it seeks to stipulate that in amparo proceedings challenging the constitutionality of general norms, no general effects shall be granted through either interim measures or the final judgment.