And who can protect us now? | Article

TO Ana Lorena Delgadillo Perez

For those of us who lived in Mexico, the first image that comes to mind when we hear this phrase is El Chapulin Colorado, that superhero who “accidentally” achieved great things. A man who recognized his fears and whose value was in acknowledging them and facing what he had to face with them.

After unconstitutional resignation Arturo ZaldivarThe Justice Fund filed the injunction on Sunday evening, the 19th. By Thursday morning, the fifteenth administrative law judge in Mexico City, Yamin Francisco Gonzalez Mendoza, has already published an agreement canceling it. Causes? Those that the judiciary has always given in cases where it did not want to interfere: we have no legitimate interest, it is a sovereign act. The latter, despite the fact that the Court has previously stated that legislative decisions are “autonomous” rather than “sovereign” because they are acts of authority that must be subject to review.

But in Mexico the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary itself concentrated power both in the appointment of the Court and in the “resignation” of ministers, without allowing any interrogation. For over 8 years, we have been promoting protection against various appointments that violate the independence of the judiciary. But they refused us again and again. It seems that getting our right to challenge these decisions recognized is a herculean task; As far as the judiciary is concerned, there is nothing we as citizens can do about it. We would benefit from learning from the experiences of Guatemala, El Salvador, Colombia and Peru, as well as other countries where this right is recognized for citizens and can be exercised.

Despite this and all his weaknesses, from the team Justice we wantwe insisted that this was necessary defend the judicial system, since this is our only protection and guarantee against the violation or arbitrariness of other authorities. The judiciary is a means of resolving disputes according to the law, listening to the parties and according to the evidence presented. But if the judiciary is not independent, it will unfairly agree with one of the parties, which overall may be the strongest, the most powerful.

It is not easy to defend a power that owes us so much. Like the prosecutor’s office, the judiciary has failed to be on the side of the most disadvantaged, the most vulnerable people, and we must accept this. As a team, we had such experience. Many victims of missing persons complained to us, not without reason: why are we going to defend the government that did not protect us? Not a single government in this country was on the side of the victims, not one. It is enough to see the reigning impunity and violence.

Former minister Saldivar promised that his reform was designed to bring the judiciary closer to the people. This was not the case. The amparo process is still extremely technical and complex, isolated from people and, unless they have a lawyer, access to it is impossible. But even when they are presented, the answer to them still depends on the judge to whom it is assigned, and there are many legal obstacles that it entails (see, for example, “Access to Justice in Mexico during the COVID19 Pandemic”).

We cannot go from bad to worse, and if something is not working, we must improve it, not make it worse, and that is what we demand from the judiciary. We need a judiciary that will be on the side of justice, and not on the side of power or the powerful. We need judges who, like the red grasshopper, protect us despite their fears.

A complete loss of judicial power to the federal executive is not a distant risk. This could begin to take hold next week with a new ministerial appointment at the Court. One fact that we cannot ignore is that this new Minister will not only remain on the Court for one year – that is, the time when Saldivar left office – but fifteen; this will undoubtedly be the intention of the Senate. In this context, the debate should not be limited to whether the candidates are good or bad, whether they are close to AMLO or not. The question we would have to ask them is simple: Why did they choose to play this game, knowing that a resignation resulting in a vacancy violates the Constitution?

We are going to continue to defend the independence of the judiciary because it is our right, because it belongs to us, because it is the fundamental balance in any democracy. We just need a brave judge. But we will still defend him, despite the judicial power itself.