I will always be a defender of conciliation and plural dialogue that allows us to understand the various perspectives with a view to building. However, there are situations in which the value of what is at stake prevents common ground. Thus, the independence and autonomy of the judging persons in a democratic State of law are not debatable.
The situation and terms of the presentation and admission of the complaint against Minister Zaldívar—and other collaborators of the Federal Judiciary Council (CJF)—and 67 judges, is a declaration of political war.
A declaration of war whose objective seems to be Arturo Zaldívar and his former collaborators. However, in reality she is a double affront: on the one hand, against the fourth transformation, specifically against the president and Claudia Sheinbaum; On the other hand, it is a direct attack on the autonomy and independence of the judging persons.
The complaint is issued, and the document reports the same, after statements by President AMLO, which have been misinterpreted and manipulated to make it believe that he and Minister Zaldívar unduly influenced jurisdictional rulings; situation that has been clarified as something completely false.
Zaldívar and his collaborators are accused of pressuring judges to rule in favor of the AMLO government; and, to the judging persons who are claimed to have issued rulings that coincide with the legal requests of one of the parties to the trial (as happens when resolving any judicial dispute).
The serious thing here is not the complaint, but rather that, since it was an anonymous complaint without evidence, the petition should have been dismissed so as not to hinder the proper functioning of the PJF. That is, the admission of this type of complaints would collapse the surveillance of the judicial function, hence its admission is limited to those that, with certain elements, allow for an adequate investigation and, where appropriate, sanction.
Thus, an anonymous complaint without evidence was partially admitted illegally; without foundation or motivation; and, with a speed and media filtration never seen before, whose publicity: I) violates the integrity and independence of the SCJN; II) puts at risk the impartiality of the judging persons; III) undermines public confidence in the SCJN as an institution; IV) constitutes a violation of the principle of presumption of innocence; V) represents a very dangerous precedent; and VI) violates the principles of transparency and accountability. All of this constitutes a corrupting effect that prevents issuing a legal, constitutional and conventional resolution.
Within the serious, what is especially unacceptable is the political message that is made from the presidency of the SCJN and the CJF against judicial autonomy and independence. Now, judging people are threatened to refrain from issuing rulings in favor of government policies or aspirations: whatever it is, whatever they ask for, rightly or wrongly; Otherwise, they may be investigated.
Finally, it is important to remember that in this electoral political context, and since Zaldívar left the presidency of the PJF, the SCJN has been the center of public debate because it is considered a corrupt power, which allows impunity, abuse of power and does not address the needs of the Mexican population. A context in which there are reform initiatives that attack the illegal privileges of the Judiciary; reforms that have been entrusted to whoever is now denounced. This is, to say the least, quite suspicious.
It is known that, during campaign times, the losing contender uses any trick to score points. However, for the PJF to get involved in an electoral process is intolerable; and, furthermore, that it interferes, affecting judicial autonomy and independence, becomes scandalous. In this we cannot seek or claim a meeting point.
