**San Lázaro Approves Constitutional Supremacy to Shield Reforms**
In a significant move on October 30, 2024, the San Lázaro Chamber of Deputies approved a contentious legislative reform aimed at cementing the supremacy of the Constitution. Garnering 340 votes in favor, 133 against, and one abstention, the reform was driven primarily by the political party, Morena. This initiative involves modifying Article 107 and adding a fifth paragraph to Article 105 of the Mexican Constitution. Often referred to as ‘constitutional supremacy,’ this measure is designed to prevent any constitutional reforms from being legally challenged.
The legislation saw support from the Morena party along with the Green Ecologist Party of Mexico (PVEM) and Labor Party (PT). In contrast, it faced staunch opposition from parties such as the National Action Party (PAN), Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), and the Citizens’ Movement (MC), who all voted against it.
Deputy Olga María Sánchez Cordero, representing Morena, argued that the reform aims to strengthen the sovereign power of the people by “constitutionalizing Article 61 of the Amparo Law.” A former Supreme Court justice, Sánchez Cordero emphasized that this reform was intended to preserve the people’s decision-making power by ensuring the continuity of constitutional reforms without judicial intervention, thereby protecting democratic practices.
Despite these assurances, opposition members voiced severe concerns. They accused the ruling majority of trying to erode judicial checks, comparing them to characters from the 1999 film “La Ley de Herodes.” Dressed in black and holding candles, PAN legislators symbolically mourned what they viewed as the judiciary’s demise due to alleged authoritarian tendencies. Legislator Margarita Zavala of PAN warned that this constitutional supremacy could pave the way to dictatorship, vowing to repeal it in the future.
**Secondary Article: Heightened Tensions Surround Mexican Constitutional Reforms**
Amid the heated debate over constitutional supremacy in Mexico, tensions remain high as the political landscape seems increasingly polarized. Reports suggest that this move could have far-reaching implications for the country’s democratic framework and the relationship between different branches of government.
Critics argue that the reform limits judicial oversight, effectively granting the legislative and executive branches unbridled authority over the Constitution. Legal analysts are particularly concerned about the implications for human rights protections, as the reform might preclude legal challenges that typically serve as checks on government power.
Proponents, however, contend that the reform reinforces the people’s will by protecting constitutional amendments from being derailed by what they see as a politically motivated judiciary. This reflects an ongoing struggle between branches of government over jurisdiction and authority, a struggle only amplified by recent political dynamics and public sentiment.
The debate is illustrative of a broader trend in Latin America where governments seek to consolidate power while navigating complex political and legal landscapes. As the situation unfolds, it will be crucial for observers both domestically and internationally to scrutinize reforms’ impacts on democracy and rule of law in Mexico.