What is the constitutional supremacy reform like in Mexico, what does it mean and what would it change?

( Spanish) – The Chamber of Deputies of Mexico discusses this Wednesday the reform in matters of constitutional supremacy, promoted by the ruling party Morena, with which it seeks to avoid the challenge of reforms to the Constitution.

Although the reform has been criticized by civil organizations and members of the opposition, Morena defend the project stating that it seeks to avoid the “political activism” of judges and magistrates who in the past have invalidated reforms approved by Congress.

The president of Mexico, Claudia Sheinbaum, said in her morning conference last Friday that the initiative does not introduce new principles, but rather formalizes in the Constitution something that was already contemplated in the Amparo Law.

The reform proposes changes to articles 105 and 107 of the Constitution so that legislation such as the controversial reform of the Judiciary and future legislation cannot be challenged or suspended.

With the modifications, article 105 points out that “constitutional controversies or unconstitutionality actions that aim to contest additions or reforms to this Constitution are inadmissible.”

A constitutional controversy and an unconstitutionality action are resources with which the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) can analyze laws and reforms approved by Congress.

On the other hand, article 107 duck that “the amparo trial against additions or reforms to this Constitution will not proceed.”

The reform also contemplates a transitional article on the retroactivity of laws that states: “trials, appeals and consultations in which the validity of an addition or reform to this Constitution has been questioned, due to its form, procedure or substance, and that on the date of entry into force of this decree are in process, they will be directly subject to what it provides, they will be left without matter and will be dismissed.”

This means that all processes or resources currently in process to challenge any reform will immediately have to be discarded and will not be able to continue in process.

The proposal on constitutional supremacy comes at a time of important juncture after the SCJN admitted at least five actions of unconstitutionality promoted by political parties and local legislators against the controversial reform of the Judiciary to analyze its validity.

Sheinbaum –who has defended the amendments to the Constitution– has faced resistance from judges to the implementation of judicial reform. The most recent event was the resolution of Judge Nancy Juárez Salas, who ordered the elimination of the publication of the legislation from the Official Gazette of the Federation (DOF).

The president criticized the judge and said that this request meant “tearing up the constitution” and emphasized that protections, such as the one presented in this case, do not apply to constitutional reforms.

“This reform is very dangerous not only for the difficult moment that Mexico is experiencing but for what follows, because what it is proposing is that in the face of any occurrence in terms of constitutional reforms there will be no defense, because the path of the protection, it blocks the path of unconstitutionality actions and constitutional controversies and practically any approval (…) could not be challenged,” constitutional lawyer Miguel Carbonell told .

Morena’s deputy, Ricardo Monreal, has defended the reform, pointing out that it is a continuation of the historic effort to strengthen the rule of law and that its purpose is to “reaffirm that nothing and no one is above the Constitution.”

“Strengthening constitutional supremacy is not an attack on justice, but rather a measure to protect the rule of law. The opinion of the initiative on constitutional supremacy will respect each step of the parliamentary process in the Chamber of Deputies; It is a reminder that the country has a clear legal order, and that each power has limits,” says Monreal in a column on their website.

For deputy Ruth Maricela Silva Andraca, from the Green Ecologist Party of Mexico (PVEM) – an ally of Morena – pointed out that the reform guarantees that the Legislative Branch is the only one with the power to modify the Magna Carta by eliminating the possibility of judicial intervention on constitutional reforms approved by Congress.

Another argument in favor is that of the Morena deputy Katia Alejandra Castillo Lozano, who assured that the reform guarantees and consolidates legal certainty and that once the will of the people was elevated to constitutional rank, it cannot be questioned through judicial processes.

In contrast, Irais deputy Virginia Reyes de la Torre, from Movimiento Ciudadano (MC), said that the reform deceives the people because it takes away the citizens’ legitimate weapons to defend themselves from the abuse and arbitrariness of the representatives.

The deputy of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) César Alejandro Domínguez assured that there is no substantiation or technical-legal reasoning and that the reforms violate the fundamental principles that gave rise to the 1917 Constitution, such as the separation of Powers and avoiding concentration of power in one.

For its part, the PAN parliamentary group in the Senate accused the government to consolidate an “authoritarian regime and an autocratic government” under the argument that the reform of constitutional supremacy threatens the constitutional and democratic system of the country,” something that Sheinbaum rejection stating that the law being reformed does not change its essence but rather reinforces what was already established.

If the proposal is endorsed, “the Constitution would contain a significant setback in terms of human rights, which, since 2011, have been progressing in their protection and recognition,” says a analysis of the organization Mexico United Against Crime (MUCD).

It details that, in the long term, the impossibility of presenting challenges could make it impossible to develop the doctrine of the review of constitutional reforms in Mexico, limiting the inability to evaluate their constitutionality and protection of human rights, leaving citizens without tools to question changes that could directly affect them.