Neither the president, nor the Legislative, nor the Judicial has the authority to change the Constitution of Mexico. Fraction I of Article 61 of the Amparo Law confirms that this trial does not proceed against constitutional reforms, as the reforming power of the Constitution is the only valid authority to modify the supreme norm in the country. Altering this national pact without following the established process would lead to a constitutional crisis.
The judicial reform under debate is a constitutional formula that reconfigures the Judicial Branch on new bases. It is argued that it goes against human rights, which motivates the lawsuits filed against it to be admitted. However, the resolutions opposing this reform are considered illegal and without legal impact as they exceed their powers.
The Constituent Power establishes that Mexico is a democratic republic with three hierarchical powers: Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. Constitutional reforms must reflect the will of the people through a complex process and respecting the legal framework so as not to undermine the rule of law. Only these three powers have the capacity to stop this constitutional violation.
The Federal Judiciary has expressed its opposition to the reform, arguing the importance of maintaining a balance between constitutional powers and respecting democratic decisions. Despite criticisms against the PJF and the Executive Branch for allegedly breaking this balance, it is questionable whether one can speak of disobedience by the president, as there is no valid ruling requiring compliance.
The Mexican Constitution establishes the rules to reflect the popular will through the Constituent Power, not only of individuals but also of institutions. Adhering to these norms is vital to maintain the rule of law and prevent illegal and illicit acts. Therefore, it is essential to respect the established process for reforming the Constitution and ensure that democratic decisions are adhered to without undermining the law.
