Breathe
By Thelma Elena Pérez Álvarez
The reform of the Judiciary generated several reactions, such as protests in several cities of the country led by law students in public and private universities, workers of the Judiciary and opponents to the ruling party. The presidential narrative on the mobilizations was focused on the strategy of polarization, arguing the defense of privileges, manipulation and declassification that non-conforming university students experience, however, reality surpasses the narrative.
For example, Fito and Mateo participated in the September 8 demonstration in CDMX, are in their seventh semester of law school at Universidad Intercontinental and are involved in legal science outreach activities. Fito, at 23 years old, has three publications, such as a legal dictionary published by the Human Rights Commission of the State of Puebla and represented his university in the High Command Dialogue on the Accusatory Criminal Process of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs before the European Union.
Mateo, 21, is about to publish his first article. He participated in a forum on the culture of cancellation and is doing his social service at the Attorney General's Office, where he was offered a job. Both are promoting the creation of an indexed legal journal and participate in the podcast Del Salón a la Sala focused on human rights.
They protested, motivated by unity and organization with their peers, they agree that young people should be interested in the country's problems. They believe in counterweights and in the defense of labor rights, they know that their generation faces a high level of labor precariousness and that the Judiciary urgently needs reform.
Fito considers that the reform could have a positive effect on the principle of gender equity, that men and women have the same opportunities, however, he points out: "I hope that these are not just good intentions, we have to prove it".
Mateo, found positive the ethical principles expressed in the initiative: "I think it is correct that they talk about nepotism and corruption, which do exist, but when reviewing the minutes you detect the inconsistency between the original approach and the final wording, for example, it mentions the eradication of corruption and corruption is not eradicated, it is prevented, controlled, punished, because the system does not guarantee that a public servant will never be corrupted. Nepotism could be eradicated, because they know perfectly well who are public servants".
They are concerned about the disappearance of the judicial career. Fito: "The Judiciary has the obligation to professionalize those who make decisions, because the law is above subjectivities and the interpretation of the law implies exhaustive and punctual studies that require an important preparation".
Mateo: "Within the judicial career there is corruption that is justified in meritocracy. I do not believe in meritocracy, because not all people have the same conditions to access positions both in terms of preparation and difficulty, because there are many people who participate. The judicial career has flaws, yes, but the reform does not imply to improve them, but to remove them from the root and this is not the way".
They find the popular election of male and female judges disturbing. Mateo: "The Executive Branch would have judges, magistrates or ministers that could favor political, economic or personal interests and could be people without the professionalism required to face the influence of groups with different interests".
Fito: "I am concerned that the profiles are not adequate to ensure that human rights violations that we had forgotten do not return. We deserve to have public servants who are prepared to dictate our legal status and future.
For both academics, the reform in itself implies regressions to human rights, such as the aforementioned disappearance of the judicial career, the incorporation of faceless judges (questioned by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights) and the division of the current Federal Judiciary Council into the Judicial Administration Body and the Judicial Disciplinary Tribunal.
Fito: "The figure of the faceless judge goes against the right of every person to know the judge, because if he/she acts badly you can denounce him/her and ask to be removed. The Court 's approach disrupts judicial independence, since it proposes the review of sentences issued by a specialized judge, and whoever oversees must guarantee specialization and independence".
Mateo: "The faceless judge is a contradiction, are we going to know his identity to elect him, but not when he hands down a sentence? His identity is violated from the moment he is elected. The case of the Court could be positive, since currently whoever presides over the Supreme Court also presides over the Judiciary Council, being judge and party is not right, but we have to see how it is implemented".
On the presidential narrative towards the demonstrations. Fito says: "This struggle is not about privileges. I protested as a student with the prediction of not having my own house and the 8% probability of living the life my parents had. We are marching students and workers who are fighting against a privileged political class that drafted and decided the reform".
Mateo: "What privileges? The rule of law and the separation of powers are rights. To live in a representative, democratic, secular and federal Republic is our right. We are not defending privileges, but constitutional and conventional rights".
*Lecturer in digital communication, advertising and marketing at universities in Spain and Mexico. Actively works for the Mexican State to guarantee the human right to media and information literacy.
The opinions expressed are the responsibility of the authors and are absolutely independent of the position and editorial line of the company. Opinion 51.
Comments ()