The plenary session of the Supreme Court of the Nation (SCJN) suspended the debate and resolution on the question and budget for the consultation on the revocation of the presidential mandate, due to the fact that during the session there was a failure in the air conditioning of the plenary hall.
During this Monday’s session, five ministers have already stated their position on the question that will be asked during the mandate recall consultation on 10 April, when the president of the SCJN, Arturo Zaldivarordered a break in the session because smoke was observed in the room.
After that, the high Court reported that there was a technical fault in the air conditioning which caused concentrated steam to be released without compromising the safety or health of the ministers at any time.
“The aforementioned technical failure is being addressed and it is expected that the discussion of the matter listed to be analyzed and resolved by the Plenary Session of the SCJN can be resumed tomorrow, February 1,” the Court said.
Minister Jorge Mario Pardo Rebolledo presented his draft resolution to the plenary session, which seeks to address the invalidity and unconstitutionality of the question originally raised in the Federal Mandate Revocation Act.
The question states: “Do you agree that (name), President of the United Mexican States, his term of office is revoked due to loss of confidence or continuing in the Presidency of the Republic until his term ends?”.
Minister Pardo Rebolledo suggested that it read as follows: “Do you agree that (name), President of the United Mexican States, his mandate is revoked due to loss of confidence?”
In support of the project, Minister Luis María Aguilar Morales indicated that from the project prepared and later approved by the Union Congress it has been made clear that the referendum to revoke the mandate can in no way be interpreted as an ratification or extension of the mandate.
“The purpose of this consultation, which is called exclusively by citizens, is nothing more than to decide on the early termination or not of the performance of the post (of President of the Republic) due to loss of public confidence,” without in any way being interpreted in the sense that this process of revocation of mandate also includes or implies a permanence in its position or ratification.
“The question contained in section 19 section V of the Federal Mandate Revocation Act is not in accordance with the constitutional draft of the revocation of mandate, because it exceeds the purpose that the Constitution gives to this legal figure. I believe that by including this question, not only the subject referring to the repeal, but also the one relating to the question whether the President of the Republic should continue in office until the end of his term, expressly includes an additional topic that does not correspond to the purpose of this figure, which discredits the purpose of the mandate recall consultation, because on the one hand it causes the attention of citizens to be distracted from the proper and exclusive matter of the consultation , ”He said.
Minister Loretta Ortiz, nominated by the President to the Senate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador In November last year, he spoke out against Minister Pardo’s project.
“I do not agree that the aforementioned normative section denaturs the exercise and turns it into an ratification, and I stand for the validity of the disputed provisions,” he stressed.
Minister Alberto Pérez Dayán expressed his support for the project, as he believes that by reducing demand, the electoral nature of the procedure is removed.
Minister Alfredo Gutiérrez Ortiz Mena, in turn, indicated that the features of the repeal have already been Ingredientso the Court only takes care of the constitutionality of the exercise.
“The goal must be clear to just ask whether you want to revoke the mandate or not and the answer must be yes or no. “From my point of view, with the declared will of the constituent power and in the constitutional norm, we must simply subject this law to those rules,” he said.