Between complaints from magistrates and magistrates for bad practices and violations of the Constitution during the mandate revocation process, the Federal Electoral Court (TEPJF) dismissed the challenge of the President Andres Manuel Lopez Obradorof the Labor Party (PT) and other actors, against the INE agreement by which it made the total calculation and made the declaration of results of the revocation process of last April 10.
The challenge of the President was dismissed because the magistrates considered that the head of the Executive did not prove legal interest to challenge the INE agreement.
The resources of the PT and other actors, such as the PRI Ulysses Ruizwere discarded as inadmissible because the consultation exercise was invalid as it did not meet the 40 percent of votes required by the Constitution to make it binding.
Reyes Rodríguez Mondragón, magistrate president of the TEPJF and rapporteur in the cases, referred to the hundreds of appeals filed during the revocation process, so the invalidity of the process does not mean impunity for the complaints filed.
He remembered that there is still more than 300 challenges under study and the ruling asks the administrative, criminal and jurisdictional electoral authorities (INE, FGR and the TEPJF itself) to be given a hearing for their investigation and, where appropriate, the corresponding sanctions to be applied.
Rodríguez Mondragón and his peers also referred to the “electoral integrity” of the revocation process.
Based on this, they referred to bad practices and violations of the Constitution that occurred in the revocation process, an exercise that was even described by Judge Janine Otálora Malassis as a “failed act of democracy.”
The presiding magistrate referred to the late issuance of the Revocation Lawto the budget cut that was made for the organization of the process and the attempt to modify the criteria of government propaganda.
The project also speaks of fraudulent support for the support of the recall referendum such as the use of public resources, the driving of voters on the day of the referendum, and improper propaganda.
“From an electoral perspective and integrity, these situations are an example of what is known as bad practices,” he said.
He assured that in order to guarantee that the revocation of the mandate is free, authentic and complete, it is essential that all those involved commit to the safeguarding the rule of law.
“The behavior of all the factors throughout the process has consequences on the democratic quality of the mandate revocation, since it generates a greater or lesser legitimacy of the exercise and its results,” he said.
At the same time, the magistrate Felipe de la Mata considered serious the marked attitude of various political actors and people public servants of not abiding by the decisions of the authority or complying with the regulatory framework.
He said that, more seriously, it turns out that in 15 cases the INE declared non-compliance with the measures imposed in the face of “the stubborn attitude” of public servants to ignore the sentences.
“He warned that the Homeland cannot be made without first doing Justice and to do justice, it is necessary to respect the laws beyond their imperfection, beyond the fact that the sanction is not expressly stated in the norm,” he indicated.
The Magistrate Malassis He stated that in the revocation consultation “it was corrupted” by transforming it into a ratification consultation and pointed out that “fraudulent figures from the past” resurfaced against which, it was thought, Mexican democracy was armored.
“The irregularities, if proven, would be a warning of the weakening of our institutions that would merit an energetic call to all political actors to defend the achievements for which citizens have fought in search of a democratic country that respects the law.”
The Judge Monica Soto He ruled in favor of dismissing the challenges, but against the pronouncement of “electoral integrity”, since he said that it refers to aspects that are still in electoral dispute.
In the same sense, Judge José Luis Vargas expressed himself, who, in principle, ruled against the minutes of the session, which removed more than 20 challenges from the list and then on the pronouncement of “electoral integrity.”
After acknowledging himself as an enemy of “judicial activism,” Vargas Valdez described the decision to make such a pronouncement as rushed and asked what is the urgency of qualifying the consultation when the Law establishes as a limit, when all challenges are resolved.
He also criticized the “progressive” format of the sentence, as he said that It is not a press release but a pure reflection of what the judicial process is, claims, evidence and arguments of the opposing party.
“Otherwise, under the pretext of judging from a modern or progressive perspective, we could be falling into excesses that translate into inconsistencies that affect the justice system.”
While the magistrates Felipe Fuentes and Indalfer Infante said, in general terms, in favor of the projects without making express reference to “electoral integrity”.