After eight months, deputies seek to correct contradictions in the judicial reform.

More than eight months after the judicial reform was approved, federal deputies endorsed a new amendment to the Constitution to correct this reform after identifying it as containing contradictions in the case of the election of the president of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation.

With the opposition voting against, the Constitutional Affairs Committee approved the draft opinion repealing the sixth paragraph of Article 97 of the Political Constitution, regarding the antinomies for the election of the president of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN).

The above is intended to remove from the Constitution the text that states: "Every four years, the Plenary shall elect from among its members the President of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, who may not be re-elected for the immediately following term."

And thus avoid contradicting Article 94 of the same judicial reform, which states that the presidency of the Court will be awarded to the minister with the most votes in the election.

"The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation shall be composed of nine members, both male and female, and shall operate in plenary session. Its presidency shall be renewed every two years on a rotating basis based on the number of votes each candidate receives in the respective election, with the presidency going to those with the highest number of votes," states the text that is being sought to remain in force.

According to the ruling, this seeks to resolve the constitutional antinomy or contradiction regarding the manner in which the president of the SCJN will be elected; therefore, it opts to harmonize the model for democratic election of the Judiciary and leaves no provisions open to interpretation.

In addition to arguing that this Commission does not abdicate its function of refining the constitutional norm in the event of a perfectible nature, having specific procedures for this purpose, including, as has been mentioned in some of the initiatives, that every constitutional or legal norm is perfectible and may be subject to possible and future contradictions, for which solutions have been created for such situations.

"Error, it is a consequence of legislating in haste and improvisation," accuses the opposition**

During the discussion of this ruling, Representative Claudia Ruiz Massieu Salinas of MC rejected the proposed amendment, claiming that the contradiction being addressed today is more than a simple technical error that is being corrected with a repeal; it is a contradiction and living testimony to the consequences of the mechanical imposition of a majority.

"What we want to address is not the result of carelessness but rather the result of an abuse that characterized the entire legislative process of the so-called judicial reform."

He also emphasized that this judicial reform, approved in September 2024, is the most representative of the previous administration, and that an error like the one they want to address is an example of how this administration has legislated "hastily, improvisedly, and also with disdain for dialogue."

Similarly, Representative Paulina Rubio Fernández (PAN) stated that the reform cannot be endorsed, as it constitutes a legal contradiction and does not correct the damage done to the Judiciary. "This amendment is irrelevant; what would contribute to amending, solving, or fixing it would be to recognize that the election of Judiciary officials is a failure."

He requested that the adjustments made to the Judiciary be rectified, which are a step backwards for democracy, since the mere fact that votes are not counted by citizens, but by the district council, is "a regression."

Meanwhile, Representative Nadia Navarro Acevedo of the PRI stated that the ruling is not a simple correction that contributes to resolving an anomaly in the presidency of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, but rather the result of "a reform riddled with inconsistencies, which we are currently attempting to resolve."

He emphasized that, although this adjustment seems small, it would imply accepting this judicial reform. "We cannot be inconsistent in modifying something we didn't agree with, so my vote will be against it."

This opinion was sent to the San Lázaro Board of Directors for analysis and discussion.