Breathe
By Julieta del Río Venegas
Democracy and the rule of law triumphed in our country. Yesterday, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) rejected the draft sentence presented before the Plenary of the Supreme Court by Minister Loretta Ortiz Alhf, which was against the constitutional controversy filed by the National Institute of Transparency, Access to Information and Protection of Personal Data (INAI) on March 27, 2023 due to the lack of appointment of three commissioners of this Institute.
This historic decision means a light on the road to transparency and legality. The process is not over, as the project in the SCJN will be returned to one of the eight ministers who voted against the debated project, but, undoubtedly, this step must be celebrated. Most of the justices demonstrated that they are women and men of law.
During yesterday's session, eight justices presented relatively similar arguments that are worth noting, for example, that Article 6 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right of access to information, is more important than the lack of deadlines in the Senate of the Republic to complete the appointments of commissioners; furthermore, that the Constitution establishes that autonomous bodies -such as INAI- must be properly integrated, and that this should prevail over the absence of consensus in the Legislative Branch, since the organic order of the Magna Carta is a priority.
Likewise, it was emphasized that the highest collegiate body of the SCJN was not discussing the decisions of the Upper House (in proposing profiles) or of the head of the federal Executive Branch (in exercising its power of objection), but rather an omission in the constitutional obligations of the Legislative Branch. Today, July 14, 2023, INAI completes 470 days without a full Plenary and 105 days without being able to meet: although there are no definitive times in the Senate to make the appointments, there are reasonable deadlines, which have already been widely exceeded.
The SCJN showed the balance of powers; even, at the end of the session, some ministers proposed to discuss the effects of the vote without the need to turn the project to another minister, i.e., how what was analyzed translates into concrete actions for the parties (INAI and the Senate of the Republic).
Although in the end it was decided that this was not pertinent and that they will do so once they discuss and vote on the new project, the ministers made it clear that they share the seriousness of the affectation of the rights of thousands of citizens (to date the Plenary of the Institute has accumulated 7,118 appeals without being able to vote due to lack of quorum).
INAI recognizes and appreciates all the support we have received from citizens, journalists, academics, legislators, civil organizations, as well as from the members of the National Transparency System. Throughout these three months without regular meetings, we have been able to join wills. We proved that it is useful to raise our voices; it is useful to resist; it is useful to explain what we are, what we do and the importance of these rights.
With the discussion held at the SCJN, it is clear that our constitutional controversy was well presented. We are optimistic; at INAI we will follow the legal paths to be able to meet and support the rights of Mexicans. Not one step backwards because it means regression in the history of transparency, which is a citizen conquest.
The opinions expressed are the responsibility of the authors and are absolutely independent of the position and editorial line of Opinion 51.
More than 150 opinions from 100 columnists await you for less than one book per month.
Comments ()