The most recent initiative by the president of the Supreme
Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN), Hugo Aguilar Ortiz, has generated
intense debate both within and outside the judiciary: the possibility that the
country's highest court could re-examine rulings issued by judicial bodies that
no longer exist following the judicial reform.
The proposal, which was assigned to Justice Lenia Batres
Guadarrama to draft a resolution, suggests opening the door to the exceptional
review of past rulings, particularly those issued by the Court's former
chambers, which were eliminated as part of the judicial restructuring
implemented this year.
A New Court Facing Past Decisions
With the recent judicial reform, the Supreme Court went from
having two chambers—each composed of five justices—to a different structure
that seeks to centralize decisions and expedite resolutions. However, the
institutional change left a key question unanswered: What happens to the
rulings issued by bodies that no longer exist?
President Aguilar Ortiz has deemed it necessary for the full
court to analyze whether the new institutional framework allows it to review
past decisions, especially in cases that could have significant implications
for human rights or the constitutionality of current laws.
According to sources within the judiciary, the objective
would not be to open a generalized review of all concluded cases, but rather to
establish specific criteria that allow for the analysis of high-impact rulings
or those with potential legal inconsistencies.
Between Justice and Legal Certainty
The proposal has divided opinions. On the one hand,
constitutional law specialists believe it could be a historic step forward if
used to correct errors or injustices committed in past proceedings,
particularly in matters where due process was violated or where new legal
criteria exist that modify the interpretation of the law.
However, other legal experts warn that this possibility
entails considerable risks. Reopening final cases could affect the principle of
res judicata, one of the cornerstones of legal certainty in any state governed
by the rule of law.
“Final rulings must remain as such; if they are reopened,
the stability of the entire judicial system is called into question,” explained
a former minister consulted by this publication.
The scope of the proposal
There is still no formal resolution on how this measure
would be applied. The draft to be prepared by Minister Lenia Batres will define
whether the Court can act on its own initiative or only at the request of a
party, as well as the criteria under which the review would be admitted.
Among the possibilities being considered are:
Reviewing only judgments issued by the chambers eliminated
after the reform.
Limit cases to those involving serious violations of
fundamental rights.
Establish exceptional timeframes or conditions to prevent
discretionary use of the resource.
An issue with political and social implications
The initiative arises in a context of profound
transformation of the Mexican judiciary, following the reform promoted by the
federal government that modified its structure, its appointment system, and the
powers of the courts.
In this scenario, the Supreme Court president's proposal has
not only legal implications, but also political and institutional ones: it
could mark the beginning of a new stage in which the highest court assumes a
more active role in reviewing its own actions, but it would also test its
independence and its commitment to the stability of the legal order.
Between innovation and prudence
If the Court decides to move in this direction, Mexico would
be facing an unprecedented precedent. Few judicial systems in the world allow
for the review of final judgments outside of extraordinary mechanisms, such as
amparo proceedings for serious violations or constitutional review trials.
Therefore, experts insist that any change must be made with
prudence and transparency, preventing the review from becoming a tool for
pressure or political revenge.
This decision will undoubtedly bring greater public
disapproval to a Court already questioned for the way it was formed. It's worth
remembering that the change rejected by the citizens came about through an
election considered illegal, in which barely 9% of the electorate cast their
votes, in clear rejection of the imposition of pro-government legislators
ordered by the then-President.
Meanwhile, the country awaits the full Court's decision and
the content of the draft that Justice Batres will present in the coming weeks.
What is certain is that, with this proposal, the debate on the limits of
justice and the stability of judicial decisions has returned to the forefront
of national discussion./E. ESGLOTAC