Mexico City — The decision by Supreme Court Justice Lenia
Batres to review cases previously decided by the high court has generated a new
wave of criticism and concern among various sectors of the citizenry,
academics, and constitutional law specialists. Her decision, adopted
individually in recent rulings, has been interpreted by analysts as an attempt
to modify established criteria and redefine judicial precedents.
The announcement comes amid growing tension between the
judiciary and the Mexican people, as well as with the other branches of
government, following the process promoted by the executive and legislative
branches—both with ruling party majorities—to renew part of the judicial
structure through a referendum that registered approximately 7% participation,
according to official reports. Although the referendum was declared valid by
the authorities, various citizen groups and civil organizations expressed their
discontent, arguing a lack of legitimacy and the limited representativeness of
the results.
Criticism has focused on what some consider a progressive
loss of independence of the judiciary. Studies by citizen observatories and
pronouncements from legal associations have warned that the perception of
institutional autonomy has weakened since the arrival of new justices close to
the Fourth Transformation (4T). These observations point both to the alleged
political alignment with the executive branch and to the lack of experience and
technical capacity of the recently appointed justices.
Experts consulted indicate that, although the review of
precedents is a recognized power of the members of the Court, its use requires
sound criteria, legal consistency, and complete independence from political
power to avoid uncertainty in judicial processes. “Modifying criteria without
broad technical support will affect the stability of the legal system and
generate distrust among litigants and the public,” warned a constitutional law
researcher.
Meanwhile, various civil society organizations have asked
the full Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) to clarify the scope of
its recent rulings and strengthen transparency mechanisms to ensure that the
decisions of its members remain within constitutional limits.
The discussion about the direction of the Judiciary remains
open, and it is expected that new internal criteria will be defined in the
coming weeks that could influence the Court's role as an institutional
counterweight.
This situation contributes to the growing tension that has
already erupted in the country, between the population that largely disapproves
of the 4T's performance in the three branches of government and the
increasingly harsh reality for the people of this Latin American nation. The
weakness of the 4T in the current administration and in the immediate past of
Andrés Manuel López Obrador is becoming increasingly evident.
Mexico is going through one of the most regrettable periods
in its recent history, but with a population that is not willing to give up and
has become convinced that the path for the country to move forward in peace and
growth is: to dismiss the 4T from the national scene, according to geopolitical
analysts.