Magistrate warns that the reform against the TEPJF is unconstitutional and benefits only the “powerful”.

The magistrate of the Electoral Tribunal of the Federal Judiciary (TEPJF), Felipe de la Mata Pizañawarned that the draft opinion that will be discussed this week in the Chamber of Deputies, and which seeks to limit the powers of that court, could be unconstitutional, in addition to the fact that it would only benefit the “powerful”, and would reduce the possibilities of defense and political participation sectors such as women, youth, people from indigenous communities and the LGBTTIQ+ community.

“It should not be important to anyone, nor should it be discussing how to hit the electoral judicial body before starting the 2024 election, much less weaken it and take away its powers. It seems to me that these types of reforms have to be intelligent, thoughtful, pondered, weighed, and that it is not anger that guides it, ”he asserted when participating this Monday in the master class“ The electoral right that we have ”.

After said draft opinion of Constitutional reform, powered by brunette, argues that the TEPJF has fallen into “excess of its powers”, magistrate Felipe de la Mata Pizaña affirmed that said court does not -per se- do politics or activism, for which reason he questioned whether there are people who say: “these judges are very activist in relation to disadvantaged groups, hang them”. He affirmed that the Court is active, but in defense of the Constitution and human rights.

“Who do affirmative actions hurt? To the strong, to the powerful. Who benefits from its limitation or eradication? To the strong, to the powerful, ”he stressed.

The magistrate described as serious that the TEPJF is being reduced to analyzing only issues related to electoral laws, since he said that the court resolves based on other laws.

“Knowing only issues regulated by electoral laws implies that human rights not contemplated in those laws, can no longer be protected by the court, there are a lot, with respect to specific acts and resolutions, and that means creating vacuums of constitutional control. Who is it convenient for the Constitution not to be controlled? Nobody,” she said.

It also described as risky -as the draft opinion states- that acts and resolutions directly or indirectly linked to the matter, and that determinations of non-electoral authorities linked to rights of this nature, cannot be justiciable before the court.

That will cause, he said, that human rights cannot be guaranteed, for example, everything that does to children’s rights in relation to the use of their image in electoral propaganda.

“A system of partial defenselessness is going to be generated, not with respect to the parties, the parties have their power guaranteed over the people, but I think that does not matter,” he questioned.

He stressed that the draft opinion reduces affirmative actions to a minimum, and warned that if approved, this rule could be unconstitutional. “Doubts arise to me if on this issue it can also be unconventional and contrary to article 1 of the constitution,” he said.

“The increase in the democratic quality in the representativeness of disadvantaged groups is evident, this started in 2021, but they are not liking it (politicians). Making the reduction or annulment of affirmative actions, it seems to me, will have to be studied by the constitutionalists, I reserve myself at the time for the vote and at the time for the respective approval, but could it be unconventional for someone? This is clearly contrary to American community law; of course it is contrary to the principle of progressivity and could lead to a contradiction between the constitutional reform and article 1 of the Constitution, ”he warned.

“The affirmative actions were created by the Superior Chamber to give representation to sectors of the population that otherwise would not become candidates, not to mention seats in the Chamber of Deputies, we are talking about indigenous people, disabled people, people of sexual diversity, Afro-descendants, migrants.

“Also on issues of parity, we must not make fools of ourselves, the electoral jurisprudence is the one that has forced compliance with the electoral law, because they were the ones who cheated on the law when gender quotas existed, and that was where It determined -depending on the year that is analyzed- 30 or 40% of women as candidates, and what did the parties do? Not complying. Other times they cheated on the law, which was to put women as owners and men as substitutes, and that the women resigned. And it was the court with its conventional analysis that gave it the format to avoid fraud to the law, ”he commented.

Regarding the fact that only the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, and no longer the TEPJF, can analyze parliamentary issues, the magistrate said he agreed.

This is the content of the draft opinion

Since Sunday night, a draft opinion of the Governance Commission of the Chamber of Deputies has circulated among federal legislators that proposes the modification of articles 41, 73, 99 and 105 of the Constitution in matters of rights and political-electoral justice .

After the TEPJF has resolved issues that dissatisfied the federal government and Morena, such as the modification of the call for four new INE directors, the draft opinion recognizes that the reform seeks to avoid “excess of its powers” by the Court , and that this exceeds “their function as guarantors of the electoral system.”

For this reason, the constitutional reform intends that the Electoral Tribunal dictate its resolutions in accordance with the limits of the electoral law and the Constitution, and that the acts and other determinations of the Chambers of the Congress of the Union do not fall within its jurisdiction.

orders that the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation be the only one that knows and resolves the controversies that arise in relation to the internal regimes of the Chambers of the Congress of the Union and the decisions of its government bodies.

It establishes that it is the exclusive responsibility of the Congress of the Union to legislate on affirmative actions in favor of vulnerable groups for the development of their political-electoral rights, and to comply with the principle of gender parity.

It also limits the participation of the TEPJF in party affairs, since it establishes that the electoral authorities may only intervene in the internal life of political parties in the terms established by the Constitution and the law.

The draft opinion is dated March 29, the day that could be analyzed in the Governance Commission of the Chamber of Deputies.

jorge.monroy@eleconomista.mx