**Commission of San Lázaro Approves General Reform of the Federal Judiciary Proposed by AMLO**
On August 26, 2024, the majority of the members of the Commission of Constitutional Points of the Chamber of Deputies of the Union Congress approved, in general, the draft reform of the Federal Judiciary (PJF) sent by President Andrés Manuel López Obrador on February 5 of the same year. The approval included at least 100 modifications.
Before the discussion began in the commission, hundreds of PJF workers demonstrated outside the legislative palace of San Lázaro. The 22 votes in favor were cast by the legislative groups of Morena and the Green Ecologist Party of Mexico (PVEM) and the Labor Party (PT). The 17 votes against came from the National Action Party (PAN), the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), the Democratic Revolution Party (PRD), and the Citizen Movement (MC).
The project proposed two elections to renew PJF positions. The first, an extraordinary election, will take place in June 2025 to renew all the ministers of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN), as well as the vacant positions of judges and magistrates, including two pending magistracies of the Electoral Tribunal of the Federal Judiciary.
Additionally, the draft proposed the creation of three evaluation committees within each power to determine the suitability of the candidates. There will be a lottery system for the selection process when there are more candidates than required. Functions of current judges, magistrates, and ministers could appear automatically on the ballots unless they chose to decline, or were appointed for another charge or judicatory circuit.
According to the project, the presidency of the SCJN and TEPJF would no longer be selected by their members but would be determined by whoever received the most votes. The reform also prohibits creating and operating trusts within the federal judiciary.
The debate, which lasted over 7 hours, saw opposition legislators warning that the judicial reform would be impractical, contrary to human rights, and harmful to the poorest sectors if approved. Meanwhile, Morena legislators and their allies defended the constitutional amendments, arguing they aimed to end the excesses of SCJN President Norma Lucía Piña Hernández and nepotism in the federal judiciary.
PRI’s parliamentary group coordinator, Rubén Ignacio Moreira Valdez, previewed that his group’s vote would be against the reform, stating that the draft’s narrative did not align with its outcome, deeming it neither democratic, fair, nor prudent.
PAN legislator Héctor Saúl Téllez Hernández criticized that the reform continued despite opposition from international bodies, academics, and legal experts, including the United Nations and Mexico’s trade partners like the United States and Canada. Téllez Hernández accused the reform of responding solely to President López Obrador’s and his successor Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo’s desires, foreseeing “catastrophic” consequences for the administration of justice.
As an example, PRI legislator Moreira Valdez cited Mexico City, saying the election process in 2025 would involve filling out 25 ballots with 4,125 names, from which 640 would be chosen, questioning the feasibility of such a process.
PAN’s Margarita Ester Zavala Gómez del Campo emphasized that the changes would result in massive layoffs of unjustified PJF workers and eliminate the professionalism and judicial career principle.
Overall, the dictamen proposed by President López Obrador in February 2024, presented on August 16 by Morena’s parliamentary group coordinator Moisés Ignacio Mier Velazco, detailed significant changes, including evaluation committees within each power and new processes for candidate selection, with aims to maintain gender parity and intern another revolutionary judicial procedure.
—
**Secondary Article: UN Expresses Concerns About Proposed Judicial Reforms in Mexico**
In a related development, the United Nations has voiced significant concerns over the proposed judicial reforms in Mexico. The UN’s Special Rapporteur for the independence of judges and lawyers, Diego García-Sayán, issued a statement critiquing the reforms as potentially undermining judicial independence and infringing human rights protections.
García-Sayán highlighted that the reforms, particularly the method of selecting judges through popular elections and evaluation committees, could open the judiciary to political and external influences. This, according to García-Sayán, poses a notable threat to the impartiality and independence of the judiciary.
The reforms have also been met with opposition from legal scholars and practitioners within Mexico, who argue that the proposed system departs from established democratic standards and risks the foundational principles of judicial neutrality and independence.
As debates continue, it remains to be seen whether the concerns from international and domestic critics will lead to any amendments or reconsiderations of the proposed reform bills. The international community continues to monitor the situation closely, considering the potential impact on Mexico’s adherence to international judicial standards and human rights protocols.