Gerardo Fernández Noroña, the President of the Senate, has firmly stated this week during social media broadcasts, asserting the lack of authority among federal judges to halt the judicial electoral process scheduled for 2025. This declaration came as a response to Judge Sergio Santamaría Chamú’s controversial order requiring the National Electoral Institute (INE) to suspend the election preparations for judges, ministers, and magistrates.
According to Noroña, the only institution authorized to oversee such decisions is the Tribunal Electoral del Poder Judicial de la Federación, underscoring the constitutional limitations of the judges' powers. He emphasized, “The only one who has authority is the Tribunal Electoral del Poder Judicial de la Federación,” framing his argument within the legal framework established by Mexico’s constitution.
Last week, Judge Santamaría had imposed a 48-hour deadline on the INE to comply with his injunction. Noroña criticized the move, commenting, “He told the INE it has 48 hours to respect the injunction he issued.” Noroña, taking on a defiant tone, challenged the judge's authority, stating, “I challenge this ridiculous judge to tell me where in the constitution does he have such authority to stop the judicial election.”
Delving deep, Noroña voiced concerns over the perceptions held by some judges who act as if they are above the law. He remarked, “Judges like this believe they are untouchable, and their word is law; the entire legal framework does not matter, what matters is their determination.” His statements highlight the tension brewing between the legislative and judicial branches within the current political climate.
This incident of judicial overreach reflects broader challenges faced by the Mexican government and the existing judiciary, particularly since the push for judicial reform initiated under former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador. Throughout this period, judges, including Santamaría, have resisted changes aiming to impact their roles and privileges.
Weighing on the larger judicial reform narrative, Noroña took the opportunity to cite Article 61 of the Constitution, which states clearly, “No amparo proceeds against constitutional reforms.” This legal backing reinforces his position against the judiciary’s attempts to halt electoral proceedings.
Political relations have been strained as the backdrop for this legal showdown plays out; there are growing concerns voiced by governmental leaders about how the courts might interfere with the upcoming electoral processes and reform initiatives. The tension has even attracted remarks from additional judiciary figures, as well as lawmakers supporting Noroña’s assertions, who see this as part of the broader struggle for power between governmental entities.
Past instances of judges resisting reforms also manifest as key elements of this conflict. For example, Judge Nancy Juárez had previously issued threats against officials who did not comply with the legal framework set forth during the reform process. Her controversial stance echoes sentiments shared by many who feel the judiciary is defending its status quo vigorously.
During these politically charged times, Noroña continues advocating for the empowerment of legislative authority, with judicial independence frequently tested against executive power. He relayed his conviction during recent discussions, urging the recognition of constitutional mandates over individual judicial decisions, framing it as imperative to uphold the democratic process.
Budging not from his stance, he remarked, “Judges remain thinking they are above the homeland,” illustrating the audacious self-perception some judges hold amid the civic ferment surrounding this electoral phase.
With the elections looming closer, the current judicial struggles overpower many of the legislative discourses happening in Mexico, inadvertently highlighting the necessity for clear boundaries within the state's functionalities. Unless the judiciary becomes reconciled with the legislative framework, uncertainty may cloud proceedings going forward, which could not only undermine judicial reforms but also ripple out adversely affecting electoral integrity.
Overall, as the Noroña vs. Santamaría feud continues to capture public attention, it paints broader questions about the reach of judicial power and the accountability mechanisms for federal judges within Mexico’s governance framework.