Inapplicable, decree on propaganda for revocation

The decree of legislative interpretation approved by senators and deputies of Morena is inapplicable to the cases of Revocation of Mandate, in addition to being contrary to the constitutional norm, it establishes a project prepared by the magistrate Felipe de la Mata Pizaña, and which will be analyzed this week by the plenary session of the Superior Electoral Tribunal Chamber of the Judicial Power of the Federation (TEPJF).

It should be noted that the decree excluded the constitutional obligation of all officials not to disseminate, promote or advertise the Revocation of Mandate consultation, so that the expressions of government propaganda issued by public servants will not be considered as such for the purposes of the prohibition of its diffusion during the period that goes from the call to the day of the process of revocation of mandate, until the day of the electoral day.

The project that will be analyzed in the Superior Chamber makes it clear that it does not make an authentic interpretation of the term “government propaganda” that seeks to clarify its meaning, but rather exceeds the exercise of said power by establishing an exception on who can broadcast government propaganda in the context of a Mandate Revocation process.

“With the foregoing, it is contrary to the text of Article 35, section IX, section 7 of the Constitution, which does not provide any exception for the dissemination of government propaganda by public servants in the processes of revocation of mandate,” referred.

“In any case, the exception that the decree of authentic interpretation intends to generate would result in a modification to a fundamental aspect of the Mandate Revocation process that is currently under development, such as its political communication model, which is prohibited at the constitutional level by Article 105,” he added.

The document of the magistrate Felipe de la Mata Pizaña argued that the unconstitutionality action 151/2021, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation determined that articles 32 and 41 of the Federal Law of Revocation of Mandate are unconstitutional, which recognize a participation active participation of the political parties in this process, given that the political institutes have no place in this class of mechanisms of direct democracy.

It also held that the full Supreme Court has recognized, through jurisprudence,12 that the authentic interpretation of the legal norms is not a power to modify or repeal them, even if it follows the same legislative process as for the initial norm, but rather establishes its meaning according to the intention of its creator.

Likewise, he confirmed that the statement entitled “Governors and Governors of the 4th transformation” is indeed an instance of government propaganda. “It must be emphasized that the statement is contrary to the Constitution, without the decree of authentic interpretation, as already stated, being able to modify this situation,” he pointed out.

[email protected]

Leave a Comment