The plenary session of Electoral Court of the Federal Judicial Branch (TEPJF) determined that the National Electoral Institute (INE) lacks the power to interrupt the phases of the mandate revocation process, so it urged it to continue with the procedure, and linked to the Secretariat of Finance and Public Credit (SHCP) to respond to the budgetary needs of the electoral body, even under the austerity measures.
During a plenary session by videoconference this Thursday, the magistrate Felipe Alfredo Fuentes Barrera presented a draft resolution that accumulated the challenges presented by the Legal Counsel of the Presidency of the Republic, citizens and social organizations, as well as Morena, against the INE agreement that ordered the postponement of some activities of the revocation of mandate due to lack of resources to continue the procedure.
Based on this project, which was unanimously approved by the magistrates Felipe Fuentes; Janine Otálora, Felipe de la Mata, Monica Soto Y Reyes Rodríguez Mondragon, the Court ordered to dismiss the challenges of the Legal Counsel of the Presidency and of citizens and social organizations, lacking powers and legal interest in the matter.
The project recognized that both Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) as well as the Electoral Tribunal have powers to resolve challenges regarding the revocation of mandate, and in the case of the Tribunal regarding the operation of the electoral authorities.
Unanimously, the plenary of the TEPJF approved the project of magistrate Fuentes Barrera, for which it was established that the General Council of the INE lacks the powers to postpone or interrupt the process of revocation of mandate, because according to the law, it must implement the measures it deems appropriate for its organization , and the only normative assumption that justifies its interruption is the breach of constitutional and legal requirements such as not reaching 3% of the nominal list of voters or that the request does not correspond to at least 17 states.
It was indicated that the INE’s budget insufficiency does not justify postponing the process, in addition to the fact that the legal provisions of the mandate revocation law established that the electoral body must carry out the necessary budgetary adjustments.
The Court said that postponing the work affects the rights of citizens to participate in this democratic exercise.
The Court determined that the INE only argued the lack of resources, but did not demonstrate the impossibility of adopting other budgetary measures, hence the budget insufficiency is not a force majeure that justifies the postponement of the revocation stages.
It also established that the INE must make the necessary budgetary adjustments for scheduled activities and in case of having a budget insufficiency, it must carry out the necessary procedures before the Ministry of Finance and Public Credit (SHCP) to request an extension to its budget, an authority that must found and motivate your response.
The magistrate Felipe Alfredo Fuentes Barrera reiterated that the INE must implement the measures it deems necessary to guarantee the political rights of citizens, but the SHCP “has to contribute and promote the obtaining of all the elements, even within a perspective of austerity. , availability and budget efficiency so that it is feasible to guarantee the effectiveness of the electoral political right of citizen participation ”.
Judge Janine Otálora partially ruled in favor of the project, because although she shared the proposal to revoke the INE agreement, she separated that the legal interest of citizens and civil organizations to challenge INE agreements is not recognized.
The presiding magistrate Reyes Rodríguez Mondragón agreed that the national electoral body lacks the powers to postpone the procedure for the revocation of the presidential mandate, and stated that “the INE may make the budgetary adjustments it deems appropriate without affecting its obligations in other matters and likewise, it may request the budgetary expansion that it justifies regarding the needs to carry out the mandate revocation process within the established deadlines ”.
The magistrate was not present at the plenary session of the Superior Chamber of the TEPJF Jose Luis Vargas Valdez.
Reference-www.eleconomista.com.mx