Deputies from the PAN, PRI, PRD, Citizen Movement, independents and even from Morena, presented an action of unconstitutionality against the reform of the Judicial Power that plans to extend the term of the presiding minister of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, Arturo Zaldívar.
The legislators, who demonstrated against the Zaldívar Law since its approval and in various forums with specialists, obtained 171 signatures, out of 165 that they needed, to accompany the lawsuit, in which the violation of various precepts of the Constitution is argued.
Among them, they mention the principle of legal security, the right of access to justice in its aspect of judicial independence, effective judicial protection, the right to be tried by an independent and impartial court, the division of powers and the non-retroactivity of the laws. .
Through a joint statement sent by the PAN, it was indicated that the appeal was filed against transitory article 13, where it is expected to extend the term of Minister Arturo Zaldívar and also to members of the Judicial Council by two years.
The parliamentary group of the PAN reported that the accumulation of the unconstitutionality action is requested with the extraordinary consultation raised by the minister president of the SCJN, Arturo Zaldívar, considering that they are means of control that challenge the same norm.
The legislators request that the unconstitutionality action be resolved by the plenary session of the Court, considering that “it is a general and abstract norm”, in addition to directly affecting the ministers themselves.
The legislators stated that there are two concepts of invalidity.
First, it is estimated that there is no correspondence between the Thirteenth Transitory Article and Articles 97 and 100 of the Constitution. They argue that these articles establish specific time limits for the duration of the positions of the presidency of the SCJN and for the councilors that make up the CJF.
The contested norm contradicts those limits by seeking to extend the term without the Constitution providing for it. The contradiction is consummated considering that from a lower norm it is intended to contradict the Constitution, which violates the principle of constitutional supremacy, “they indicated.
Second, it considers that the approval of the Thirteenth Transitory is the result of a legislative process that had multiple violations and did not comply with the principle of democratic deliberation.
In addition, in the Senate the transitory article was added without paying attention to the rules of announcement and publicity for discussion as well as the approval of the reservation.