Deputy Patricia Urriza expressed her opposition to the stance of the Morena Caucus and its allies, whom she described as inconsistent for requesting an interpretation of the law from the Judiciary while advocating for reforms to the judicial system to avoid complicity with economic power. In this regard, she expressed her concern for the respect of democratic principles and the right to participate in economic and social development.
On the other hand, Deputy Alberto Vanegas explained that his recourse presented to the Superior Court of Mexico City did not seek to halt the legislative process to ban bullfighting, but rather to request a consultation on the economic and social impact of the initiative in the affected communities. Vanegas reiterated that his intention was not to obstruct the citizen reform, but to seek relevant information for making informed decisions.
In response to the halt of the discussion on the citizen initiative that seeks to ban bullfighting, figures such as Jesús Sesma from the Green Party condemned the intervention of the Constitutional Chamber of the Judiciary in the legislative process. It was argued that this suspension affected the autonomy of the legislative power and could set a dangerous precedent of legislative paralysis.
There was a strong division among lawmakers' positions, questioning the interference of the judiciary in the legislative and defending the autonomy of each. On one hand, the suspension was rejected as an arbitrary and illegal act, while on the other, the necessity to consult and consider all aspects involved in the proposed reform was defended. Different political actors expressed their positions firmly, revealing tensions and discrepancies surrounding this controversial judicial decision.
