Mexico's Morena Party Consolidates Power with Judicial Reform

In a move poised to reshape the boundaries of judicial review in Mexico, the Chamber of Deputies approved a landmark draft declaration endorsing reforms to Articles 105 and 107 of the country's Magna Carta. The amendments, which target the non-challengeability of future additions or changes to the Federal Constitution, signal a significant shift in Mexico's constitutional framework, intensifying debate over the scope and limits of judicial power.

The reform was championed by Sergio Gutiérrez Luna, the President of the Board of Directors and a prominent member of Morena, the ruling political party. Gutiérrez Luna announced the historic decision following the confirmation of majority support from Mexico's state legislatures and the capital, Mexico City. “The Congress of the Union, in use of the power conferred by article 135 of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States, and after approval by the majority of the honorable legislatures of the states and Mexico City, declares article 107 reformed and a fifth paragraph added to article 105 of the Political Constitution,” he declared, emphasizing the reform’s far-reaching implications for constitutional governance.

The draft declaration will now be forwarded to the Senate for constitutional purposes, a step that many observers believe could shape the legacy of the López Obrador administration, whose influence is deeply enmeshed in Morena's legislative agenda. Critics and supporters alike are already scrutinizing the potential ramifications for Mexico’s checks and balances system, especially concerning judicial review.

The backdrop to this controversial development dates back to Thursday’s face-to-face session, where Nayeli Arlen Fernández Cruz, Secretary of the Board of Directors and a deputy from the Green Ecologist Party of Mexico (PVEM), disclosed a pivotal communication from the Senate. She detailed that 23 state legislatures had given their affirmative votes, clearing a significant constitutional hurdle. These included Baja California, Campeche, Chiapas, Hidalgo, Mexico State, Oaxaca, and Zacatecas, among others. The consensus among these entities provided the necessary momentum for federal lawmakers to proceed with the contentious reforms.

Central to the debate is the insertion of a fifth paragraph into Article 105, which stipulates, “Constitutional controversies or actions of unconstitutionality that have the purpose of challenging additions or reforms to the Constitution are inadmissible.” Simply put, this amendment insulates constitutional reforms from being challenged in the judiciary, effectively barring the Supreme Court and lower courts from interfering with legislative changes to the foundational legal document.

A parallel modification was made to Article 107. The updated provision clarifies that amparo trials—an essential mechanism of judicial review in Mexico—cannot be used to contest constitutional reforms. This adjustment further delineates the judiciary’s role, limiting the courts’ power to issue rulings that would nullify constitutional amendments or affect broader public policy.

The revised language reads: “The sentences that are pronounced in the amparo trials will only deal with complainants who have requested it, limiting themselves to supporting and protecting them, if appropriate, in the special case on which the claim is based. In the case of amparo trials that resolve the unconstitutionality of general norms, in no case will the sentences that are issued establish general effects. The amparo trial against additions or reforms to this Constitution will not proceed.”

Political and Judicial Reactions

Proponents argue that these changes will streamline constitutional governance, insulating vital reforms from endless legal entanglements that could stall legislative progress. Morena legislators have long contended that such judicial roadblocks disproportionately empower an unelected judiciary, undermining the will of the electorate. By curbing the judiciary’s ability to challenge constitutional amendments, lawmakers claim they are fortifying the principle of democratic supremacy.

However, detractors are sounding the alarm, warning that the reforms represent a fundamental threat to judicial independence and the checks and balances enshrined in Mexico’s democratic system. Legal experts emphasize that the amendments could weaken the judiciary's role as a guardian of constitutional order, potentially paving the way for unchecked political power. The implications extend far beyond mere procedural adjustments; critics fear they could embolden future administrations to enact sweeping reforms with minimal accountability.

Human rights advocates and opposition figures are also voicing concerns that restricting judicial oversight could endanger civil liberties. The amparo trial, a bedrock of Mexican constitutional law, has historically served as a critical tool for protecting individual rights against government overreach. By narrowing its scope, these reforms may expose vulnerable populations to the risk of unredressed grievances.

The reforms have sparked widespread discourse about the separation of powers in Mexico. At a time when institutions around the globe are grappling with challenges to democratic norms, this legislative development stands as a bellwether of how constitutional democracies can evolve—or backslide. Supporters see an opportunity to fortify legislative authority, while skeptics foresee an erosion of hard-won legal safeguards.

One of the key questions going forward will be how the Mexican judiciary responds, both legally and politically. While the Supreme Court’s role in adjudicating constitutional matters will be circumscribed by the new amendments, ongoing cases that remain unresolved may offer a window into how these reforms will be practically implemented.

The decree is set to take effect the day after its publication in the Official Journal of the Federation. Any pending cases will have to adapt to the new legal landscape, resolved in accordance with the reformed provisions. This transition period will be critical, as the judiciary and civil society grapple with the realities of a redefined constitutional framework.

All eyes will be on how the balance between democratic governance and judicial oversight is recalibrated. Whether this legislative maneuver will lead to greater stability or unleash a new era of political and legal contention remains an open question, one that could redefine Mexico's constitutional identity for years to come.