On Sunday, retirees from Mexican Petroleum (Pemex) called on deputies to act with “sensitivity” and “historical responsibility” in the secondary laws of the pension reform, warning of risks of retroactivity, legal uncertainty, and violation of personal data. In a public statement addressed to the public and the Chamber of Deputies, the Associations of Trusted Retirees of Pemex maintained that “any transformation must expand rights, not create precedents that weaken them.”
They emphasized that modifying already-granted retirement conditions would affect “consolidated rights,” contrary to the principle of non-retroactivity of the law. They also warned of potential legal uncertainty, as the rules with which workers built their life plans “cannot be changed unilaterally once their working life is over.” The associations added that allowing discretionary adjustments to previously established benefits “breaks the principle of legality” and leaves individuals vulnerable to public power. “Today it is us, tomorrow it could be any other sector.”
Additionally, they accused the Secretary of Anti-Corruption and Good Government of disseminating false information on March 13 about “exorbitant pensions,” including the identities of retirees, which they claimed generated misinformation and violated data protection principles. This call comes after the Chamber of Deputies and Senate approved President Claudia Sheinbaum's reform to amend Article 127 of the Constitution, which sets that pensions and benefits for trusted personnel in public entities shall not exceed half the remuneration of the head of the federal executive. The proposal included decentralized bodies, state-owned enterprises, national credit societies, majority state-owned companies, and public trusts, with exclusions for the Armed Forces, voluntary contributions to individual accounts, complementary union contributions, and non-contributory pensions.
Among its transitional provisions, the project provides that already granted and non-excluded pensions will be adjusted to the new cap, one of the points that has triggered criticism from retirees and part of the opposition due to its possible retroactive effect. To date, the proposal continues its approval process in the state legislatures across the country, as being a constitutional change, it requires the approval of at least half plus one of the state congresses to be officially published, come into force, and allow legislators to draft the secondary laws for its implementation.
