Judicial Reform Under Debate: Clash of Views in National Forums

The Mexican political arena is heating up with the start of national forums dedicated to the controversial Judicial Reform. Morena, the ruling party, reaffirms its intention to move it forward, while the opposition and experts warn of the dangers of a possible subordination of the Judiciary to the Executive Branch and demand dialogue that leads to a true consensus.

The political day of this Friday, June 13, 2025, is inevitably marked by the start of discussion forums on the reform of the judiciary, an initiative that has polarized opinions and generated considerable nervousness in the financial markets. The Morena coordinator in the Senate, Ignacio Mier, was forceful in stating that "nothing will stop the judicial reform," a statement that underscores the ruling party's determination to implement the proposed changes. This stance remains firm despite the economic turbulence that followed previous comments about the intention to accelerate the legislative process.

The forums, organized by the Chamber of Deputies and the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM), have brought together a wide range of stakeholders. Legislators from all parliamentary groups, the eleven justices of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN), representatives of the courts of justice of the 32 states, as well as members of the Judicial Branch workers' union are expected to participate.

The agenda proposed by the Chamber of Deputies is extensive and will address fundamental questions such as: "What kind of judiciary do we have? What kind of judiciary do we want?" The composition and reorganization of the judiciary will also be discussed, including aspects of austerity, the management of trust funds, and the labor rights of its workers. Other crucial topics on the agenda will be the division of powers and, most importantly, the proposal for the popular election of justices, magistrates, and judges. For its part, UNAM will focus its discussions on the composition of the SCJN, the creation of a new judicial administration body and a disciplinary court, in addition to analyzing the feasibility and consequences of popular election of justice administrators.

* Suggestion: An image of Congress or UNAM with a headline superimposed over the forums, or a short video with excerpts from statements by key political actors.

From the opposition side, the National Action Party (PAN) has been clear: its legislators will vote against the reform as currently proposed. They believe that the initiative, far from strengthening the justice system, seriously jeopardizes judicial independence and could lead to the subordination of the judiciary to the executive branch. However, they have left the door open to a discussion leading to a "consensual" reform that addresses the deficiencies of the justice system without undermining its autonomy and independence.

* "The problem with this reform is not that it aims to solve everyday problems... it's seeking to remove all the judges, ministers, and ministers who are currently in office... and to make the new judges, ministers, and magistrates subordinate to the regime," said a PAN legislator, detailing his concerns.

The Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) has also reaffirmed its vote against the reform, calling it a "setback" and urgently calling for a legislative process that is genuinely transparent and participatory, where all voices are heard and considered.

The concerns are not limited to the national political sphere. Numerous studies and civil society and legal organizations, both Mexican and international, have sounded the alarm. Institutions such as the Mexican Bar Association, the Mexican Bar Association, the Rule of Law Impact Lab at Stanford University, and the New York Bar Association have warned of the serious risks of politicization that the popular election of judges would entail, the potential impact on judicial independence, and the consequent weakening of democratic checks and balances in the country. Some analyses even compare the proposal with the Bolivian judicial system, highlighting the challenges that model has faced, and warn of the possibility of a "serious crisis in the administration of justice" in Mexico if the reform is implemented without substantial modifications.

These forums, therefore, are emerging not only as an exercise in open parliament, but as a true battleground for ideas and visions about the future of justice in Mexico. For the ruling party, they represent an opportunity to legitimize a reform they consider necessary and transformative. For the opposition and critical sectors, they are a crucial platform to express their dissent, warn of the risks, and, perhaps, influence public opinion and the final draft of one of the most far-reaching reforms of recent times. The big question is whether these spaces for dialogue will succeed in modulating the position of the majority party or whether they will become a mere formality before a definitive approval.

A fundamental point of tension, though not always explicit in the debates, lies in the dilemma between "suitability vs. loyalty" in the selection of future justice administrators. If the popular election mechanism and, crucially, the nomination of candidates, remains predominantly in the hands of the executive and legislative branches—currently with a pro-government majority—there is a well-founded fear that political affinity will be prioritized over technical capacity, experience, and independence, essential qualities for a robust and impartial judiciary.