Although she is an avowed progressive, Mexico’s Supreme Court president Norma Piña has become the greatest antagonist of progressive President Andrés Manuel López Obrador.
In the last month of AMLO’s six-year term, which will hand over power to Claudia Sheinbaum on October 1, the official majorities in Congress approved a controversial reform to the federal Judicial Branch that Piña presides over.
In practice, the reform strips power from the country’s highest court, not only by reducing the term of office of its judges, but also by subjecting their election to a popular vote.
The ruling Morena coalition, empowered after the overwhelming victory in the June general elections, insists that the reform will democratize the judiciary. It maintains that it is corrupt and nepotistic, and ignores the daily events of the people.
And Pineapple, While he admits the need for ambitious reform, he sees it as an affront to the separation of powers. and democratic principles. The opposition, lawyers’ organisations and the US government agree with her.
Although 70% of the people support Obrador’s government, the reform has generated protests, a judicial strike and the devaluation of the Mexican peso, as investors fear for the legal security of their businesses in the country.
Piña, who is 64 years old, answers questions from BBC Mundo in the midst of this situation. His advisors, rather than monitoring the interview, follow the news. Congress is discussing the initiative. There are signs for and against in the hallways. The haze and pollution can be seen from the 14th floor of the Judicial Branch building in the south of Mexico City.
It is one of the most critical moments in the recent history of the judicial branch.
Piña declares herself a feminist, defender of social and civil rights, and proposes reforming the justice system.
“But not like this, but with dialogue and from the foundations of the system, which is where the problems are,” assures.
What is Mexico’s situation right now?
It is a very complicated situation. There is a lot of uncertainty. The future of our country depends on what is decided today and in the coming days in the local courts.
The reform, in the terms in which it is proposed, affects the division of powers in our country.
What is the main problem with the reform?
The system established for the election of judges, because it implies that to be a judge no training is required, just being a lawyer; there is no need to have training, there is no membership in the bar association, and they will be elected by popular vote after entering a raffle. In other words, they will draw a piece of paper.
It will be luck to be a federal judge or magistrate in Mexico.
It sounds democratic to elect judges by vote. Advocates speak of bringing justice closer to the people. Why can’t a citizen be the one to elect a judge?
The election of judges and magistrates, as currently implemented in Mexico, is through an indirect democratic system: the president proposes them and from there the Senate determines who is a minister (magistrate).
For judges and ministers, we must establish that they are not representatives of the people. They are not politicians. They are people who are capable of resolving a conflict in society.
Federal judges also resolve problems between individuals and authorities. If it becomes a political issue, logically, how much will that judge respond to his electorate for a popular issue, instead of resolving as the laws establish?
One might think, starting from a democracy, that it sounds good, it sounds nice, that judges and magistrates should be elected, but in practice it is totally ineffective, that system will not be able to be implemented.
And if it is implemented, we will see the consequences, which in my opinion are a step backwards in the administration of justice.
Why is it not the same for a citizen to elect a magistrate as it is for a citizen to elect a president?
At the federal level we have 1,650 judges. Do you think that citizens will know all the people who make up that list and will know if this person is capable of resolving conflicts, if they have experience, if they are experts, if they do things the right way?
It is a question of placing more responsibility on the citizen himself, instead of having it assumed by the State.
One of the functions of the State is the administration of justice, and for this to be true, it needs capable and specialized people.
It is not that citizens are stupid, but do they have the knowledge of who has the experience to resolve their conflicts? Or is it up to the State itself to organize a justice system with judges trained to administer justice?
Why is it a problem to establish a disciplinary control body for judges, which is another of the reform’s initiatives? In principle, it seems reasonable that they should be accountable and controlled.
There is already control over federal judges and magistrates. This is done through the Federal Judicial Council.
And any person affected by a decision of a judge or magistrate, who considers it to be illegal or biased, can ask the Council to review it and initiate an investigation, and if proven, the sanction is dismissal or disqualification.
The system now proposed is that the Council separates administration and oversight. It would be a disciplinary court.
However, this court will be made up of five people who will also be elected by popular vote and will review the performance of judges and magistrates. They will be judges of judges.
What guarantees do citizens have that this court will establish an irregularity on the part of the judge, if they are also participants in the popular vote scheme?
In what situations can direct democracy be harmful?
No, I agree with direct democracy when it comes to the Legislative and Executive branches, but the Judiciary does not allow it because of the specialization required.
Mexico is in a difficult situation with regard to crime, there is 90% impunity and corruption. How can this be resolved? If not with this reform, what?
Electing judges by popular vote will not solve the problems of security and the administration of justice.
Impunity is also generated because citizens themselves are wary of reporting. So logically, if they keep you sitting for three hours, they don’t take your complaint, they make you come back, they are re-victimizing you.
But reform must come from below; the judge is not the problem.
Official data estimate that 80% of judicial proceedings in Mexico take place in local courts and in prosecutors’ offices, the same as the aforementioned prosecution service.
The reform does not attack the root of the problem, because it only focuses on the pyramid, at the top, not on the foundations of the system, which is where most of the cases are.
Criminal justice in Mexico is local, because crimes are local. There are certain crimes that do belong to the federation, where it is determined whether the sentences are in accordance with the law or not, but they are the minority.
But justice as a value cannot be limited to criminal matters: justice means that any arbitrary act by an authority can be controlled by a judge. And that is what federal judges do.
Support for this government is overwhelming and historic. Are you not afraid that opposition to the reform will generate a reaction detrimental to the social and political peace of the country?
Yes, because a narrative has also been constructed, starting with the president’s morning press conferences, in which federal judges have been systematically called into question.
This six-year narrative that they are corrupt, that they are rotten, that there is nepotism, is permeating the people who support the president.
I do fear that the situation will get worse.
If approved, what happens? What future awaits the country?
I am not normally a pessimist. But I do see that the future of Mexico is going to be affected, and it will affect not only the country as a State, but also the citizen.
Because any arbitrary act by an authority can be controlled by a federal judge, but if they are going to be elected by popular vote, and they are going to have to serve or please their voters, this counterbalance between authority and citizen will be diluted.
The judiciary has been very little reformed.
Updating the system would mean implementing more courts, technologies, access to justice, peaceful dispute resolution measures, and justice for the general population.
One of the great defects of the federal judiciary is that we have not been able to communicate with society. We have many files to resolve, we spend our time behind a desk.
I am convinced that a reform to the federal judiciary is possible through dialogue. But if a reform such as the one proposed is carried out, it is an attack on democracy.
During AMLO’s six-year term, the Judiciary truncated crucial presidential initiatives through citizen injunctions. There are those who believe that this reform is more of a “whim” than an argumentative, technical struggle between the judiciary and the presidency.
I don’t know if it’s a whim, because I don’t know the president personally.
But I do believe that he did not like the decisions of the Supreme Court, because the Court actually voted against, for example, the National Guard belonging to the military, when in reality it should be civilian according to the Constitution.
Nor did he like the fact that civil associations have stopped or suspended government projects that affect the environment, such as the famous Mayan Train.
I am convinced that this initiative is more a political issue than a technical one.
What do you think of the experiences in other countries of electing judges by popular vote?
In the United States, first of all, it only happens at the local level. But, in addition, the essential thing is what kind of people can be elected as judges: there they are lawyers with a certain training, with a professional association, they must pass bar exams, they are experienced people.
Not here: here leaving school, having five letters from the neighbors and having an average will already allow you to be a judge.
And the closest thing, although not equal due to the size of the country, is Bolivia. And statistically they have not even been able to elect judges, because people do not go out to vote because they do not know the candidates.
Click here to read more stories from BBC News Mundo.
You can also follow us on YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, X, Facebook and on our new channel WhatsAppwhere you’ll find breaking news and our best content.
And remember that you can receive notifications in our app. Download the latest version and activate them.