**Primary Article: Morena Proposes Impeachment for Judges Who Halt Judicial Reform Discussion**
Lawmakers from the Morena party have announced the possibility of initiating a political trial against judges who approved the suspension of discussions on reforms to the Judicial Branch, which are being promoted by President Andrés Manuel López Obrador.
In a press conference, Ricardo Monreal Ávila, coordinator of the Morena parliamentary group in the Chamber of Deputies, informed that during the Political Coordination Board (Jucopo) meeting, actions against the judges from Chiapas and Morelos were considered. Even though it was not approved, the idea remains “on the table” within Morena.
Monreal outlined three potential actions against the judges for their “serious interference in the internal affairs of the Legislative Power”: political trials for disqualification, criminal complaints, and complaints to the Federal Judicial Council (CJF).
During the Jucopo, a decision was also made to modify the timetable for discussing judicial reforms. Consequently, the session initially scheduled for Monday was canceled and rescheduled for Tuesday for general discussion and Wednesday for a specific debate.
Noemí Berenice Luna, parliamentary coordinator of the National Action Party (PAN), proposed a new series of forums for deputies and senators of the LXVI Legislature, which began its term this Sunday, to review the draft.
A judge from Morelos and another from Chiapas granted a suspension to prevent the Chamber of Deputies from discussing the judicial reforms scheduled for the upcoming Monday.
In a unique situation during a judicial strike, which prevents members of the Judiciary from litigating against the legislative process of Judicial Reform for not being an “urgent” matter, these judges obtained a suspension. Diego Valadés Ríos, a staunch critic of the judicial reform, deemed this resolution “baseless.”
In Morelos, Judge Martha Eugenia Magaña granted a provisional suspension on Friday, ensuring the dictate does not affect the four federal judges who filed for constitutional protection.
According to file 1251/2024, the petitioners filed a constitutional protection request on August 29 against President López Obrador and the Legislative Power, arguing that the dictate was approved by the outgoing Permanent Commission, thus violating the legislative procedure.
Judge Magaña considered that this suspension does not pronounce on the reform’s content but rather on the ongoing legislative process. However, the ruling considered the repercussions of the constitutional changes.
This could imply that the Judicial Branch can override the Congress of the Union and the 32 state legislatures.
In Chiapas, Judge Felipe V. Consuelo took a similar stance.
“It is appropriate to grant an official suspension regarding the effects and consequences of the contested acts,” ruled Judge Consuelo, directing an exhortation to the District Court for Administrative Matters in Mexico City and notifying the relevant authorities.
The four judges who requested constitutional protection earn monthly salaries of 218,000 pesos, higher than the head of the Executive Branch. In their request, they admit their ignorance about the reform process timeline but claim it harms their personal rights.
“We do not know the exact date when the initiative was presented to the Federal Congress, and we do not know when the constitutional reform process began, but given the imminent approval by the respective Commission for discussion and approval in the Chambers of Congress and State Legislatures, and considering the irreparable harm to both Federal Judges and Circuit Magistrates, especially to ourselves, we consider that the proposed reform is damaging to our legal sphere. For this reason, we seek constitutional protection,” the request for protection states.
**Secondary Article: Experts Weigh in on Judicial Reform Controversy**
As the debate over judicial reform and the recent suspensions granted by judges from Morelos and Chiapas intensifies, experts across the field weigh in on the potential implications for Mexico’s judicial and legislative branches.
Legal scholar Diego Valadés Ríos, previously critical of the proposed reforms, commented that the judiciary’s unprecedented move to suspend legislative discussions could lead to a significant power struggle between the branches of government. “This lack of judicial basis for their suspension challenges the traditional boundaries of judicial intervention in legislative matters,” he stated.
Political analyst María Amparo Casar noted, “The situation underscores the judiciary’s potential to influence significant legislative changes, which could set a precedent for future judicial-legislative interactions in Mexico.”
The implications of this debate extend beyond the courtroom and legislative halls, with public opinion showing a sharp divide. Civil society organizations, such as the Mexican Bar Association and non-governmental watchdog groups, have called for greater transparency in both the reform process and the judiciary’s role in it.
Meanwhile, international observers continue to monitor the situation closely, as the outcome could impact Mexico’s democratic stability and rule of law. “This case sets a critical precedent for how democratic institutions accommodate checks and balances within a politically charged context,” said a spokesperson from Human Rights Watch.
As the rescheduled sessions approach, both supporters and critics of the reform remain vigilant, awaiting the ultimate decision that could reshape Mexico’s judicial landscape.