The universalization of justice is undoubtedly the objective of all enlightened public policy. The primary idea is that there is no human being who is deprived of access to justice to the same extent that other human beings are not.
In that sense, liberal universalism is against, as a matter of principle, privileges or that there are individuals or groups of power with access to the justice system, while others remain without the ability to claim justice.
This essence of the liberal universalist idea is what is at stake with the reform of articles 129 and 148 of the Amparo Law regarding Suspension of the Claimed Act and Unconstitutionality of General Norms, which has just been approved by the Senate and, in generally, by the Chamber of Deputies and which the Senate is expected to approve in its plenary session in a very summary manner this week. All this without having resorted to the democratic practice of open parliament, that is, consultation with specialists and citizens.
The reformed law initiative seeks to limit the general effects of the so-called “suspensions”, which are fundamental tools in Amparo trials that allow a jurisdictional body to order the responsible authorities to keep their actions paralyzed or stopped during the time in which they are resolves the Constitutionality of the acts. For several decades, the theory of the amparo trial was evolved so that the so-called suspensions could have general effects, in cases of norms that directly violate the Constitution. With the reform, which the Upper House is already aware of, a reversal of an ultra-personalist nature would be presented, which violates the collective right of individuals not to be harmed by a Law that could potentially be declared unconstitutional by the judiciary.
That is, if the reform is approved by the Senate, the Judiciary would be prevented from granting suspensions with general effects. This would obviously have the effect that only those who can have access to a good defense are successfully protected, while those who cannot finance legal advice services remain helpless, in the double sense of not having legal protection and being at risk. mercy of unjust and, perhaps, unconstitutional laws.
Anyone with even the slightest sense of justice can immediately realize the potentially tyrannical nature of these reforms.
The ostensible intention of the group in power is to grant unlimited powers to the legislative and executive branches, escaping the constitutional control of the acts of the judiciary. This type of plebiscitary power, we know very well, can only lead to control by one group over the other members of a society. It is necessary to reject this despotic pretension of the ruling party, which is notoriously regressive for the ideals of justice.
