The reform of the Federal Judicial Council is not viable because the elements are lacking to carry out a reform in which there are popular representatives instead of qualified judges, said Circuit Magistrate Selina Haidé Avante Juárez.
During his participation in the forum “National Dialogues”, moderated by federal deputy Raquel Bonilla Herrera in this city, he added that what is needed is to strengthen the “extraordinary Federal Judicial Council, because as long as there is no dialogue and only disqualifications, there will be no work for the people.”
Magistrates, judges, academics, lawyers and social leaders participated in the forum and agreed that the federal justice system can be improved if those seeking justice have adequate legal support to guarantee the development of the files and prompt and expeditious justice.
The event was held in complete calm and there were also those who pointed out that judges do not release criminals, as they claim that they have always acted in full compliance with the law.
They even stated that the Public Prosecutor’s Offices are the ones that have failed in their function and said that talking about the Disciplinary Tribunal that is proposed is trying to show that much of what has been built in judicial discipline is functional, without failing to recognize that like all institutions it is perfectible and improvable.
They also pointed out the drawbacks to the creation of a Judicial Disciplinary Court, such as the fact that it would be based on a popular election process for magistrates that prevails at both the federal and state levels.
Reform must be structural, says magistrate
Hortencia María Emilia Molina de la Puente, a judge of the Seventh Collegiate Court in Civil Matters of the First Circuit, said that the greater power that has been granted to them represents a great responsibility to exercise it for the benefit not only of the majority, but above all of the disadvantaged minorities.
He also stated that a general, structural reform of the justice system is required. He even specified that the platform should not be used to fallaciously argue that judges release criminals.
“First of all, in this country we are all presumed innocent, and secondly, it is the public prosecutor’s office that does not fulfil its legal obligations,” he said.
He also said that it is important to guarantee a democratic system of separation of powers and that this is because “the idea of Government underlies a hierarchical structure and in this type of structures the person who heads them usually holds a lot of power and delegates it to his subordinates, which is contrary to the notion of judicial independence that seeks to ensure the impartiality of each judge.”
Institutions can be improved
The proposal to create a Disciplinary Court is an attempt to demonstrate that much of what has been built in judicial discipline is functional, although it must be recognized that, like all institutions, it can be perfected and improved, said María Gabriela Rolón Montaño, magistrate and Executive Secretary of Discipline of the Federal Judicial Council.
She added that it is not true that judges and magistrates are not investigated, because “although it is true, many complaints are dismissed and I know this because I am currently Executive Secretary of Discipline, due to several factors.”
He said that one of them is the false belief that through an administrative complaint a jurisdictional decision can be modified or revoked.
In this regard, he explained that the disciplinary procedure cannot have any influence on the jurisdictional procedure, since it perceives a public order purpose, which is the regulation of the jurisdictional function.
Another factor, according to her, is that the complaint only contains generic arguments, “like when the judge who ruled in a biased manner says that he was unfair in releasing a criminal, but they do not give specific elements that show us any legally reprehensible conduct.”
She also asked those present how attractive it is for a prospective lawyer to take on a procedure where his client will not have a profit or a procedural advantage in the jurisdictional proceedings and she herself responded, in the face of the silence of those who listened to her: “the answer would be very little, because what interest would there be?”
Merit and exam system has worked
Jacobo Mérida Cañaveral, a doctor of law and researcher, asked what kind of judge is wanted or what kind of judge is being attempted to be created, after stating that “it must be acknowledged that the system of merits and competitive examinations has worked and has generated certainty, but the Judiciary requires a broad and deep reform.”
According to him, the Disciplinary Tribunal is seen as a matter of specialization of the Court’s function and added that it is important to review the unassailability of its resolutions so that it is constituted by members who have another conception of justice.
Respect for guarantees
Manlio Fabio Casarín León, a researcher at the Institute of Legal Research at the University of Veracruz, outlined some of the drawbacks to the creation of a Judicial Disciplinary Tribunal and said that guarantees must be respected.
First, he pointed out, it is because the court is based on a popular election process for the magistrates who preside over this court at both the federal and state levels, so “the duration of the position coincides with the period of the political authorities who nominate them.”
Furthermore, although the initiative speaks of a phased replacement, “their popular election compromises and violates national and international guarantees and standards of dependence and impartiality, as well as the technical capacity of autonomy and independence of the judicial branch.”
He also stated that judicial disciplinary procedures must respect the substantive and procedural guarantees of access to justice, due process and effective judicial protection based, precisely, on the independence and impartiality of the judges.
He stressed that these procedural guarantees are applicable to the disciplinary sphere and contain specific standards in accordance with rules of conduct established in fair procedures that ensure the competence, objectivity and impartiality of the disciplinary body.
He also stated that the system of appointing magistrates “creates perverse incentives for the selective application of the law and expeditious justice, that is, to sanction judges whose decisions do not conform to the political preferences of the regime in power or paralysis in the face of coincidence of political affinities between male and female magistrates or judicial officials subject to sanctioning procedures.”
The judiciary should not be dismantled
Nadia Villanueva Vázquez, a magistrate of the First Collegiate Court for Civil Matters of the Seventh Circuit, said that the aim is to remove or terminate nearly 1,700 federal judges without having them heard in a prior trial.
He also said that this is a transparent power and that its function is published on the pages of the Federal Judicial Council, where statistics are provided each month establishing its income and expenditure.
“I would like to mention here that, while it is true that we agree that there must be a reform to improve and strengthen the Judiciary, but not to dismantle it.”
Ambiguity and omission
Laurence Pantin, general director of the Foundation for Justice and the Democratic Rule of Law, said that the idea of a court of justice independent of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation and the administrative body could represent certain advantages, although the way it is presented in the initiative implies some serious risks.
He argued that the main problem is that the grounds opposed in the initiative to investigate and, where appropriate, sanction judicial officials are very general and ambiguous, since they contemplate acts or omissions contrary to the law, the public interest or the proper administration of justice.
“When decisions do not conform to the principles of objectivity, impartiality, independence, professionalism or excellence, there cannot be an adequate administration of justice and a kind of witch hunt takes place,” he said.
Proposal focuses on discipline; there could be a setback
The Federal Judiciary’s advisor, Lilia Mónica López Benítez, argued that the initiative to reform the Judicial Branch proposes replacing the Federal Judiciary Council with a Judicial Disciplinary Court and a Judicial Administration Body, so the proposed division focuses only on the functions of discipline and administration, losing sight of those of surveillance, inspection, control and investigation.
The Executive Secretary for Discipline of the Federal Judicial Council, María Gabriela Rolón Montaño, stated that the proposal put forward by the Federal Executive means a legal setback and that, therefore, it must be reflected upon with depth, responsibility and collective conscience, in order to leave a better Mexico for future generations.
He added that in order to make the current justice system more efficient, it is necessary to implement a mechanism for a public entity to advise complainants or victims during the preparation of complaints and the administrative procedure.
It is a political and persecutory reform
Marco Barrera Vázquez, a lawyer and human rights activist, considered that the reform proposal is not organic, after arguing that there have already been organic judicial reforms in the contemporary era.
He also said that it is not a judicial reform, since the Amparo Law was already constitutionally enacted in 2011.
“It is a political reform and we must understand that it will change the Federal Judicial Power,” he said.
In addition, Flor Rocío Méndez Arrieta, professor at the Euro-Hispano-American University in Xalapa, said that the selection of judges should be based on objective and transparent criteria that consider the professional performance of their candidates and that they should not be subject to dismissal for their judicial decisions to avoid persecution.
Opportunity for workers in the Judiciary
The general secretary of Section 34 of the Union of Workers of the Judicial Branch of the Federation, Enrique Galicia López, indicated that as operational and middle management personnel, this reform initiative should be seen as an enormous opportunity to obtain better working conditions with true justice and equity, with the possibility of the budget being efficiently managed so that they can obtain a salary increase every year.
He added that the planned Judicial Disciplinary Tribunal would resolve accumulated cases with autonomy, justice, equity and promptness. He also commented that the judicial career should not disappear; however, the election of these positions gives the opportunity to elect judges, magistrates and ministers to people who clearly have technical and professional capacity.
Risks to human rights
Luis Tapia, a professor at the Universidad Iberoamericana, warned that the justice system needs to be reformed, saying that there is a situation of structural discrimination in access to justice.
He also said that the initiative is incomplete and that it is lacking due to its absences, in addition to being risky for people’s human rights.
He also stated that it is necessary to reform the way in which possible responsibilities that judges might incur when carrying out jurisdictional work are investigated.
“Citizens must be informed of how they can report acts of judicial corruption, and the mechanisms must be simple and easily accessible,” he said.
Note published in Diario de Xalapa
2024-07-13 02:29:07
#Reform #CJF #viable #experts #point #National #Dialogues #forum #Veracruz #Sol #México
