## The Constitutional Reform Ending Judicial Independence
In February 2024, President Andrés Manuel López Obrador introduced a constitutional reform to the Legislative Power, which poses severe ramifications for the Judicial Branch. On September 3, this initiative was passed with some modifications in the Chamber of Deputies, thanks to the overwhelming majority of the Morena party. Subsequently, it was also approved by the Senate, expeditiously, as a parting gift for the President, who leaves office on September 30, 2024.
The central idea of this reform is that all judges, both at the federal and local levels, will supposedly be elected through “popular and secret” votes. The President argues that judges are corrupt and must be dismissed, proposing a new Judiciary selected by the people, citing Article 39 of the Constitution: “National sovereignty resides essentially and originally in the people. All public power emanates from the people and is instituted for their benefit.”
Supporters claim that judges elected by popular vote will have legitimacy and that it will open the “formal judicial circle,” allowing any citizen to become a judge. This recent reform plans for judicial elections to be held in 2025 and 2027, initially replacing half of the current judges with newly elected ones, and the rest in the second period.
At the federal level, this reform affects Supreme Court Justices, who will be reduced from eleven to nine, as well as magistrates of the Electoral Tribunal and Circuit Courts, and District Judges. Theoretically, this popular election process aims to eliminate corruption within the Mexican Judiciary.
However, this reform jeopardizes judicial independence, as judges must decide cases freely without pressures from the Judiciary, Legislative, or Executive branches (or potentially the media and political parties). The essential question is whether this new legal and institutional framework will favor or undermine the judicial independence in Mexico.
The proposal clearly undermines judicial independence due to the inherent external pressures in a popular election system. Judges, like politicians, would be influenced by those who present and support them, compromising their actions and decisions.
Benigno Licea González, a doctor in Criminal Law and Constitutional Law, was president of the “Emilio Rabasa” Bar Association and currently presides over the College of Legal Medicine and Forensic Sciences of B.C.
—
### Secondary Article: Legal and Public Reactions to Judicial Reform
Since the passing of the controversial judicial reform in Mexico, several reactions have surfaced from various sectors of society. Legal experts and institutions have expressed grave concerns about the implications for judicial independence and the overall balance of powers in the country.
Prominent lawyers and former judges argue that the reform is a strategic move to undermine judicial checks and balances, potentially paving the way for greater executive control over judicial decisions. Various bar associations and legal bodies are considering measures to challenge the constitutional validity of the reform through amparos (constitutional protection suits).
Moreover, international human rights organizations have highlighted the risks associated with such a drastic change, warning that it could compromise the fair administration of justice and erode public trust in the judicial system. They stress the importance of safeguarding judicial independence to ensure an unbiased and effective legal system.
From a political perspective, opposition parties are rallying to mobilize public sentiment against the reform. They call for nationwide protests and campaigns to raise awareness about the potential threats posed by the reformed judicial selection process. Several lawmakers from opposition groups are preparing to submit appeals to national and international bodies, seeking intervention and support to reverse the reform.
### Public Opinion and Media Response
Public opinion appears to be divided, with some citizens favoring the idea of having a direct say in the selection of judges, believing it could foster transparency and accountability. However, legal analysts and critics caution that the general populace may not possess the necessary legal knowledge to elect qualified judges, leading to potential partisan biases and unqualified appointments.
Media responses also vary, with some outlets supporting the President’s narrative of fighting corruption, while others raise alarms about the encroachment on judicial autonomy. Editorials and opinion pieces reflect concerns that the reform could backfire, making judges more susceptible to political and public pressures, thus impairing their ability to deliver impartial justice.
As the country navigates this significant constitutional change, the ongoing debate underscores the critical importance of an independent judiciary in maintaining democratic integrity and protecting citizens’ rights.
For more updates and in-depth analysis on this topic, stay tuned to TJGringo.com.