**”Mátalos, Después Averiguas”**
By Óscar Hernández
The phrase “Mátalos, después viriguas” is attributed to Doroteo Arango, better known as Francisco “Pancho” Villa. He reportedly commanded his subordinates to execute the captured enemies during the Mexican Revolution. Villa’s logic was straightforward: eliminate the problems caused by enemies without hesitation.
This historical anecdote draws a parallel with President López Obrador’s recent actions towards ministers, magistrates, judges, and employees of the Federal Judiciary, one of the three independent branches of government, which are supposed to operate without interference. Accused of corruption, these judicial workers are facing job loss without concrete evidence against each individual. The President has decided to replace them and implement a system where new judges would be elected by popular vote, disregarding judicial careers and experience.
While corruption within the judiciary is undeniable, implying that all members are corrupt is a gross generalization. Justice should be served through legal proceedings, identifying and punishing the corrupt while upholding judicial integrity and workers’ rights.
The controversial reform of the judiciary, pushed by López Obrador, appears to be less about tackling corruption and more about consolidating power. This reform is moving forward despite criticisms and national forums meant to debate it turned out to be more about form than substance.
In response, the workers of the Federal Judiciary have initiated a national strike, joined by the Association of Federal Judges and Magistrates (JUFED) – a first in Mexico. This illustrates the extent of discontent and fear among the judiciary staff.
Considering corruption beyond the judiciary, similar accusations could be levied against other political figures, including municipal presidents, governors, deputies, senators, state secretaries, and even the President, many of whom have apparent evidence against them.
Stopping corruption shouldn’t mean mass firings without due process. It jeopardizes judicial independence, extinguishes funds, erodes labor rights, and undermines the division of powers. This aggressive reform seems more like a vendetta of a President seeking to leave a lasting mark before his retirement.
Former SCJN President Arturo Zaldívar’s recent alignment with more radical stances, disparaging the court he once led, further complicates the situation.
The “will of the people” is a phrase often used, but it’s doubtful that most legislators or citizens understand the full ramifications of these reforms.
### Secondary Article: Judicial Reform Stance Sparks Nationwide Backlash
**Updated Developments on the Judicial Reform Debate**
Following the controversial push for judicial reform by President López Obrador, the situation has continued to evolve, provoking intense reactions across Mexico. Various legal experts and political analysts express concern over the potential long-term impacts on the judiciary’s independence and effectiveness.
**Strike Escalates:** The national strike by the Federal Judiciary has seen increasing support, with demonstrations spreading to multiple cities. Employees argue the reforms threaten judicial impartiality and undermine their labor rights.
**Public Forums and Debates:** Despite initial national forums intended to gather diverse opinions on the judicial reforms, many participants feel the outcomes were predetermined. Critics argue these forums failed to address substantive concerns.
**Legislative and Public Reactions:** Several legislators voice their opposition, emphasizing the need for careful scrutiny and a more balanced approach to reforming the judiciary. Public opinion remains divided, with a growing awareness of the implications of these reforms.
**International Observers:** Global judicial bodies and human rights organizations are monitoring the situation closely, cautioning that the concentration of power in the executive branch could set a worrying precedent for democratic institutions in Mexico.
**Key Figures Speak Out:** Prominent legal scholars and former judiciary members continue to challenge the reforms’ rationale and execution. The discourse centers on preserving judicial expertise, ensuring procedural justice, and maintaining checks and balances.
The debate over judicial reform in Mexico is far from over. It underscores the broader struggle between maintaining institutional integrity and the push for political control. The ultimate outcome could significantly shape the future of Mexico’s legal landscape.
For continuous updates and in-depth analysis, stay tuned to TJGringo.com.