What to know about changes to Mexico’s Constitution that prohibit court challenges to amendments

MEXICO CITY (AP) — Mexico’s federal and state legislatures, all dominated by the ruling Morena party, have passed amendments to the Constitution that prohibit courts from challenging any Constitutional reforms.

In the past, courts in Mexico had been able to rule on whether a new reform violated existing precepts in the Constitution or international treaties that Mexico has 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 courts shouldn’t be able to place themselves above elected bodies, but critics say the new measures weaken checks and balances and eliminate people’s recourse to argue violations of their rights in court.

Why was the reform passed?

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

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

Not PARSE.LY: Mexico City

Moody’s downgrades Mexican government’s outlook to ‘negative’ over weakening of judiciary and debt

 

US ambassador says Mexico ‘closed the doors’ on security cooperation and denies its violence problem

 

Mexican legislators reelect head of human rights agency who failed to address abuses

 

What was the law before?

While it was always unclear whether judges could rule that parts of the Constitution violated other parts of the Constitution, it was also accepted that certain precepts like human rights or international treaties stood above all other principles. Now it is not clear whether there is any avenue — apart from going to international tribunals — to appeal.

Why are critics upset?

Endowed with two-thirds majorities in both houses of Congress, the ruling Morena party has pushed through a whirlwind of Constitutional changes, including militarizing federal law enforcement, sometimes in a matter of hours, with almost no discussion and very little time for legislators to even read the changes.

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

That leaves any party that controls the presidency and legislative branch essentially able to approve any changes they want, including potentially declaring Mexico a monarchy, according to Georgina de la Fuente of the non-governmental group Latin American Observatory on Political Reforms.

What else has changed?

The ruling party has already pushed through a Constitutional reform that will make all judges, right up to the Supreme Court, stand for election.

Opponents say that will not only open the way for party-line votes on court positions, but also open the possibility that the country’s powerful drug cartels will get their own candidates elected as judges, because someone will have to pay for all those election campaigns.

Critics are also upset about the minimal requirements for candidates for judgeships, including letters of recommendation from neighbors, a 4 out of 5 minimum grade point average in law school and a few years of undefined “legal experience.” That compares to the sort of civil-service type of advancement system currently in place, where judges are appointed after serving in supporting court positions for years.

Can the reform be blocked?

Mexico’s Supreme Court could hear arguments against the Constitutional reform, but it’s not clear if they will have grounds to do so, and anyway, almost all the justices have said they will tender their resignations in August because of the new rules saying judges must be elected.

The new reform also has a sort of retroactive effect, so that it basically cancels legal appeals filed by court employees who feel their rights were violated by the reform to elect judges. Many of those court employees have spent decades working their way up the civil service system, in hopes of one day being judges.

How is this different from other countries?

The changes put Mexico in unknown territory. In many countries, people can file appeals alleging that specific laws or Constitutional amendments have violated their rights or their interests. While 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 nobody has ever wiped their slate of federal judges clean and held hundreds — perhaps thousands — of elections for new judges within a short period of time.

____

Follow AP’s coverage of Latin America and the Caribbean at https://apnews.com/hub/latin-america