Is Mexico's Judicial Reform a Genuine Path Towards a More Efficient and Equitable Justice System?

By Goodrich, Riquelme y Asociados

The Mexican government is initiating a significant judicial reform aimed at modernizing and strengthening its justice system. This reform seeks to address various challenges, including corruption, inefficiency, and the lack of access to justice for marginalized communities.

Mexico's judicial system has faced criticism for its slow pace and lack of transparency, which have eroded public trust and hindered economic development. In response, the government has proposed a reform package with several components.

A central goal of the reform is to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the justice system. This includes streamlining procedures, reducing case backlogs, and increasing the accountability of judges and prosecutors. To achieve these objectives, the reform proposes investments in technology, training, and infrastructure. Additionally, it aims to strengthen judicial independence and protect judges from undue influence.

Another key aspect of the reform is to enhance access to justice for all citizens, especially those from marginalized communities. This involves providing legal aid services, improving court availability in rural areas, and addressing language and cultural barriers. The reform also seeks to protect the rights of crime victims and ensure they receive timely and adequate compensation.

To combat corruption within the judiciary, the reform proposes establishing stricter ethical standards for judges and prosecutors and strengthening mechanisms for reporting and investigating misconduct allegations.

However, the judicial reform is a complex undertaking. The bill for the judicial reform was presented on February 5, 2024, and includes controversial changes to the federal and state justice systems, such as:

-Election of judges by popular vote.

-Creation of a new judicial administration body.

-Creation of a court of judicial discipline.

-Procedural changes to ensure prompt and efficient justice.

The project has faced harsh criticism from judges, specialized legal organizations, and both national and international authorities. Awaiting its discussion in the Senate, the proposal was already voted in the Chamber of Deputies amid an indefinite strike by thousands of workers and judges in the judiciary system who believe it undermines its independence and weakens democracy.

The Surpeme Court of the Nation stated that any attempt at judicial reform must carefully consider its potential impact on the daily operation of the courts and on people's access to justice. “A poorly planned and executed reform may exacerbate and compromise the thousands of cases under the jurisdiction of Mexican judges. Over the past 20 years, Mexico has undergone various judicial reforms, particularly those related to the transition to oral proceedings in criminal, commercial, labor, and family/civil law. These experiences have highlighted the importance of effective planning and implementation to ensure regulatory change is effective. They also show that institutional transformation and reorganization processes require several years for consolidation,” a report says.

One of the most contentious points of the reform is the proposal to elect federal magistrates and judges, numbering nearly 2,000, by popular vote starting next year. The proposal suggests that the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches present candidate lists for public voting.

The initiative has been criticized even by the U.S. Ambassador to Mexico, Ken Salazar, in an analysis of the reform published on August 22, 2024.

“Based on my lifelong experience supporting the rule of law, I believe the direct election of judges poses a major risk to the functioning of Mexico’s democracy. Any judicial reform should include safeguards that will strengthen the judicial branch rather than subject it to political corruption. I also think that the debate over the direct election of judges, and the intense politics surrounding the elections for judges in 2025 and 2027 if approved, will threaten the historic trade relationship we have built, which relies on investors’ confidence in Mexico’s legal framework. Direct elections would also make it easier for cartels and other bad actors to exploit politically motivated and inexperienced judges,” Mr. Salazar expressed.

Mr. Salazar said that he understands the importance of Mexico’s fight against judicial corruption but argued that the direct political election of judges would not address judicial corruption nor strengthen the judicial branch. He also warned that it could weaken efforts to make North American economic integration a reality. “A strengthened judicial branch in Mexico must have capable judges to manage complex litigation for extraditions, trade disputes, and other issues. Yet the proposal as it stands removes the necessary requirements for having the highest qualifications for judges, including reducing the required years of experience to serve at all levels of the judiciary,” Mr. Salazar concluded.

His perspective is shared by other organizations such as the International Bar Association. “The proposal is far-reaching and includes the popular election of ministers of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, federal judges, and magistrates, in addition to reducing their terms of office, linking their salaries to those of the executive branch, and creating a judicial disciplinary court elected by popular vote,” says a statement published on Septembre 2, 2024. “The reform should not risk the essential mission of an independent judiciary, namely the fundamental right of all persons to receive an independent, professional and fair administration of justice, which is recognised by the Mexican Constitution”, it adds.

In 2011, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers had already reported on the uncertain independence of judges and lawyers in Mexico, concluding that while the federal judiciary was largely independent and impartial, individual state courts left much to be desired due to routine interference by the Executive branch in state courts’ judicial appointment processes.