The author is Representative of COPARMEX before Collegiate Bodies of INFONAVIT.
Why is it contrary to the Constitution that the “presidential” initiative (presented by “two deputies”) intends that the resources of the Housing Subaccount (SV), from “inactive” accounts, be transferred or sent for administration to the Government? Federal?
Basically for two reasons:
1) Because these resources (which employers pay on behalf of their workers, by constitutional mandate) are sent directly to INFONAVIT, which is the Institute that by constitutional provision is in charge of administering them and this administration is with the sole objective that they become late or early in housing for workers; What is the mechanism? The granting of credits for the purchase of housing, that is, INFONAVIT receives them from employers, manages them and makes them work so that they reach the workers through credit.
It is important to clarify this, since the Court has held in precedents dating back to 2006 that these resources cannot be mixed generically with the resources to pay pensions. On that occasion, derived from the 1997 pension reform, the Supreme Court analyzed the constitutional claim of a worker in which he said that the housing subaccount resources were not constitutional to be sent to the federal government once he had decided pension in terms of the 1973 Law. The Court, after analyzing it, considered that it was unconstitutional because said resources have a specific purpose, which is the acquisition of housing and cannot be mixed, generically speaking, with the resources for the payment of pensions (there is another precedent that speaks about this possibility, as long as it is individualized, that is another story and the Court considered it constitutional). In the case of the Reform that concerns us today, the fact that it is said again generically that said resources will go to the payment of pensions is what makes it unconstitutional, due to these precedents that are conceptually applicable to the case of the Reform Initiative. presented in recent days and that will soon be approved by the Congress of the Union, and
2) Because according to the Constitution, these resources, which are paid by the employers and are property of the workers, can only be administered by INFONAVIT; their administration cannot be transferred, as has been the narrative of the last few days of the Director General of the INFONAVIT himself. INFONAVIT and the Secretary of the Interior; You cannot change your administration SW pretext of considering it unconstitutional, because the Constitution establishes that the person who must administer it is INFONAVIT; and second, because it is not about depriving workers of the right to request their return, but rather transferring its administration to the federal government, that is what cannot be done, at least today, as long as the Constitution is not modified. Its administration corresponds to INFONAVIT, by mandate
3) constitutional, and no one else (including the federal government). In other words, INFONAVIT does not have substitution powers; it cannot delegate its administration to another entity, including the federal government.
We will see what happens with this initiative, but at least, there are clearly two arguments that make a Reform such as the one intended be considered unconstitutional. #OpinionCoparmex.
