YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → 🟣 Diplomado en Juicio de Amparo

🟣 Diplomado en Juicio de Amparo — Transcript

by Casas de los Saberes Jurídicos · 15,705 words · 2,495 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:01and in particular from the General
0:02Directorate of Human Rights and
0:04Pluricultural Justice and the General
0:06Directorate of Legal Knowledge Centers.
0:09We cordially welcome you to the 2026
0:11edition of the Amparo Trial Diploma. My
0:15name is María Sofía Reyes Lorenzo,
0:17Director of Human Rights Culture, and I
0:19will have the honor of moderating this
0:21inaugural session entitled Judicial
0:23Reform and Reform of the Amparo Law:
0:25Main Transformations. For accessibility
0:28purposes, I describe myself as a person
0:31with white skin, medium build, brown
0:33hair, and I am wearing a gray jacket
0:35and a black blouse. We respectfully
0:39greet our distinguished authorities of
0:42this session, as well as the litigants,
0:44judicial and administrative personnel,
0:47public servants, teachers, researchers,
0:49students, human rights defenders,
0:51members of civil society, and all those
0:54interested in learning about and
0:56strengthening their knowledge of the
0:58amparo trial. Before starting, we
1:03inform you that the signal for this
1:04session will be sent to a broadcast on
1:06YouTube that you can watch on the
1:08platform. Your attendance will be
1:11automatically recorded upon entering
1:12the broadcast on the platform and will
1:14remain throughout the session. For all
1:18those who require them, subtitles are
1:20automatically activated. You can make
1:23your comments and concerns by clicking
1:25on the questions button located at the
1:27top of the session broadcast window. As
1:30part of the start of the diploma course
1:32, we would like to share some important
1:34recommendations to facilitate access
1:36and participation in the first sessions
1:38. Due to the large number of people
1:41registered, during the first sessions
1:43you may experience some technical
1:44issues or access difficulties. In this
1:48regard, we recommend that you first
1:50carefully check your email, which
1:52should include reviewing your junk mail
1:54, spam, or even the promotions folders.
1:58It is also important to verify that the
2:00username and password are entered
2:02exactly as they were sent. If you have
2:06any difficulty accessing the platform,
2:08we ask that you contact us through the
2:10support directory of the houses of
2:12legal knowledge that you can find in
2:14the body of the emails sent to you. In
2:17addition, it is very important to note
2:19that the recording of each session will
2:21remain available for 7 calendar days
2:23after it is held. Therefore, if any
2:26person is unable to access the live
2:28session due to a technical difficulty,
2:30they will be able to view it later by
2:32entering the platform and thereby
2:34accrediting their attendance. We extend
2:38a warm welcome to the authorities of
2:40the Supreme Court of Justice of the
2:42Nation who are with us today in this
2:44inaugural session, who will deliver a
2:45brief welcome message. We would like to
2:49greet Professor Beatriz Casas Arellanes
2:51, General Director of the Houses of
2:53Legal Knowledge, and Dr. José
2:54Hernández Hernández, General
2:56Secretary of the Presidency of this
2:58Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation.
3:02We also appreciate the presence of Dr.
3:04Víctor Leonel Juan Martínez, General
3:06Director of Human Rights and
3:07Pluricultural Justice of the Supreme
3:09Court of Justice of the Nation. Now, we
3:12will listen to the messages of our
3:14authorities. For this, I will give the
3:17floor to Professor Beatriz Casas
3:19Arellanes, General Director of the
3:21Houses of Legal Knowledge. Go ahead,
3:24Professor Beatriz.
3:26Thank you very much. Have a nice day to
3:29everyone. It is a pleasure for me to
3:33inaugurate this diploma course. I hope
3:37that the content that the General
3:39Directorate of Human Rights has been
3:42designing meets the expectations of
3:44many who signed up for it. This diploma
3:48program is very important because it
3:51serves as a relevant tool to help
3:53guarantee the rights of all the
3:55citizens. I hope you can take advantage
4:00of the knowledge that is presented here
4:03and that you can continue to update
4:05yourself throughout the diploma, since
4:08it is vital for everyone's education.
4:12Welcome and good luck. Thank you. Thank
4:16you very much, Beatriz. Next, we will
4:19hear from Dr. Víctor Leonel Juan
4:21Martínez, General Director of Human
4:22Rights and Pluricultural Justice. Go
4:25ahead, Dr. Víctor Leonel.
4:27Thank you very much, Sofía. Good
4:28morning, everyone. First of all, I want
4:31to warmly greet the people who are
4:34watching us today through these
4:37different mechanisms that modernity has
4:40and that allow us to achieve what
4:43Beatriz, the director of the houses of
4:46legal knowledge, pointed out. More than
4:5064,000 people have signed up. This also
4:53has to do with the concurrence of
4:56different instances of the Supreme
4:58Court of Justice of the Nation.
5:02Although the General Directorate of
5:04Human Rights and Pluricultural Justice
5:06is responsible for designing and
5:08building the curriculum and the
5:10contents of the diploma, it is true
5:13that it could not be done without this
5:15great effort, this important support
5:17from the houses of legal knowledge, for
5:20which I particularly thank its director
5:22, Professor Beatriz Casas Arellanes. It
5:26would also not be possible without the
5:28support of the General Secretariat of
5:31the Presidency. Today we are joined by
5:33Dr. José Hernández, who is its head.
5:37I would also like to thank him for all
5:38the support he has given to the
5:39different activities that we carry out
5:41from this directorate. I would also
5:45like to mention that this diploma is
5:48part of these training exercises that
5:51Minister President Hugo Aguilar
5:53entrusted to us and in which, as you
5:56have heard on various occasions, he
5:59surely points out that we must build
6:02and achieve real and true peace. To
6:06achieve this, we need, among other
6:08things, to ensure the ongoing training
6:10and permanent updating of all the
6:12individuals who participate in legal
6:14processes. I believe that if you look
6:18at the statistics of those who are
6:21joining us today in this exercise, who
6:23are starting this exercise, we see that
6:26a significant number of those taking
6:29this course, more than half of those
6:31who will be taking this course, are
6:34lawyers, litigators. There are also a
6:39good number of public servants from the
6:42judicial, state and federal branches of
6:46government, as well as human rights
6:48defenders, students, and it is also
6:51particularly important to note that we
6:54even have around 900 people from other
6:57Latin American countries who are taking
7:01this course. This pleases us because we
7:05see that this training and updating is
7:11not only relevant, but there is also a
7:14clear demand and interest in applying
7:17for this diploma course and in becoming
7:20part of it. It is worth noting that,
7:24since last year, we have included this
7:27perspective of human rights,
7:29interculturality, multicultural justice
7:32, and intersectionality in the
7:34curriculum, which has resulted in an
7:37even more solid curriculum and training
7:40space. This diploma course has 80 hours
7:45of training, 21 cyclonic sessions, and
7:47four modules that analyze everything
7:50from the foundations and processing of
7:52amparo to the analysis of
7:54constitutional arguments, the effects
7:56of rulings, and their application in
7:58specific cases. Today, Alejandra Loya,
8:03the Chief Justice's presentation, will
8:06address the main transformations
8:08resulting from the judicial reform and
8:11the amendments to the amparo law with
8:14the purpose of providing elements to
8:16understand the current state of
8:19constitutional justice. As you are well
8:23aware, we are currently immersed in a
8:25process of transformation. The Mexican
8:28justice system has been transformed for
8:302 years. Important reforms have also
8:33been made to the amparo law. Some other
8:37additions are being made. There is
8:40currently a consultation process for
8:43the indigenous law initiative, in which
8:46, as we were able to see, there is also
8:49a section that has to do with
8:51protection in indigenous matters; and
8:54all of this requires, of course, that
8:57we, the institutions that can offer
8:59these training and updating spaces,
9:02keep ourselves up to date, and that you
9:06also have a response to these concerns
9:09and needs. These sessions will also
9:16include an analysis of key issues for
9:18current practice, such as the system of
9:20precedents, the general declaration of
9:23unconstitutionality, the means of
9:25appeal, and compliance with judgments.
9:29It is also very important to note that
9:31in the last three sessions, the people
9:33participating in this diploma course
9:35will be able to choose between
9:37different thematic routes: protection
9:39for immigration, protection for the
9:41protection of girls or the collective
9:43rights of indigenous peoples and
9:44communities, and labor or environmental
9:47protection. It is also important to
9:51note that this incorporation of
9:53specific routes is based on the
9:56recognition that rights violations do
9:58not occur in the abstract, and that the
10:01amparo trial must address the different
10:03contexts and barriers faced by
10:06individuals, groups, and communities.
10:10Recognizing this thematic diversity
10:13must be accompanied by a teaching staff
10:15made up of specialists from the Supreme
10:18Court, other jurisdictional bodies, the
10:21Public Defender's Office, academia,
10:23human rights organizations, and civil
10:25society organizations that have
10:28extensive and vast experience in
10:30strategic litigation. It is therefore
10:34important to emphasize that the purpose
10:37of this diploma course is not only to
10:40learn the rules of the amparo law, but
10:42to understand how this mechanism is
10:45used to address rights violations and
10:48facilitate effective access to justice.
10:52All that remains for me to do is
10:54congratulate and wish a successful
10:56first day and the days that follow to
10:58all the people who are participating in
11:01this diploma course on the amparo trial
11:03, starting today. Thank you to each one
11:06of you.
11:08Thank you very much, Dr. Víctor Bronel
11:10. We will immediately hear from Dr.
11:12José Hernández Hernández, Secretary
11:14General of the Presidency, who will
11:16deliver a message and make the opening
11:18statement. Go ahead, Doctor. Good
11:24morning to all the women, men, and
11:27non-binary people listening to us from
11:30a distance. Professor Beatriz Casas and
11:36Dr. Víctor Leonel have explained the
11:39details of this diploma course,
11:42including the number of people enrolled
11:45, the content to be covered, and the
11:48number of hours. Some details have been
11:56made regarding the innovations that
11:59this diploma course has had in its
12:02previous edition, but now new, specific
12:05issues have been incorporated, and the
12:08thematic content that will be covered
12:11seems very comprehensive to me. And,
12:15well, this diploma would not be
12:17possible without the collaboration, as
12:20Dr. Víctor Leonel has rightly said,
12:23without the participation of experts in
12:28the field from the different
12:30presentations of the Supreme Court of
12:33Justice of the Nation, academic staff,
12:35from other instances, people who are
12:38involved in the day-to-day processing
12:40of amparo proceedings, such as
12:42defenders from the Federal Institute of
12:45Public Defenders. And I believe that it
12:51will be a very substantive diploma, of
12:56very high academic quality, as it has
13:01always been. And now with these new
13:05additions that Dr. Víctor Leonel has
13:07specified, I believe that they will be
13:10even better, right? So I believe that
13:15with the diploma that begins today, we
13:18will have the tools to bring to the
13:20scope of justiciability all the
13:23fundamental rights contained in the
13:26Constitution and the international
13:28treaties to which the Mexican State is
13:31a party. So I believe that we will all
13:37receive very useful tools to be able to
13:43demand before the competent courts,
13:45before the district courts, the
13:47collegiate courts and eventually before
13:50the Supreme Court of Justice of the
13:52Nation all the rights contained in
13:55these fundamental instruments that I
13:57have referred to. In such a way that it
14:02is my responsibility to inaugurate this
14:05activity organized by the two general
14:08directorates that have been mentioned.
14:13And I am pleased that every day this
14:16diploma course reaches many more people
14:19, right? I believe that our previous
14:24number of registrants, people
14:27registered, was 40,000 and now we are
14:30going to more than 60,000, so it is
14:34important that it reaches more corners
14:37of our country, even other contexts in
14:41Latin America. Without further ado, at
14:4810:15 a.m. on August 31, 2026, I
14:52formally declare this event open and we
14:56will surely proceed to listen to
14:59Professor Alejandra Loya in this
15:03inaugural class. Thank you very much.
15:08Greetings to everyone. We would like to
15:12once again thank the authorities who
15:14joined us for this inaugural event.
15:17Understanding their busy schedules, we
15:19appreciate their presence and wish them
15:21an excellent day. We ask the
15:24participants to stay tuned. Next, we
15:28would like to welcome our speaker for
15:30today's session, Professor Alejandra
15:32Loya Guerrero, whom we thank for her
15:34willingness to contribute to this
15:36training space and from whom I would
15:38like to read a brief summary of her
15:39curriculum. She is originally from the
15:43city of Chihuahua, Chihuahua. She holds
15:45a law degree from the Instituto
15:46Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores
15:47de Monterrey and a master's degree in
15:49Governance and Human Rights from the
15:51Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. She is
15:53currently in the process of obtaining a
15:55master's degree in constitutional law
15:57from the Escuela Libre de Derecho. She
16:00also has specializations in evidentiary
16:02reasoning from the University of
16:03Girirona and in constitutional justice,
16:05interpretation and protection of
16:07fundamental rights from the University
16:09of Castilla la Mancha. In 2015, she
16:12collaborated with the Inter-American
16:13Commission on Human Rights in
16:14Washington, DC. Within the Federal
16:18Judicial Branch, she has held various
16:20positions as a judicial officer,
16:21judicial clerk, and court secretary;
16:23and in the Supreme Court of Justice of
16:25the Nation, she has served as assistant
16:27secretary of the report, as general
16:29coordinator of advisors, and, currently
16:31, secretary of study and accounts,
16:33assigned to the report of Chief Justice
16:35Hugo Aguilar Ortiz. Professor Alejandra
16:38, we give you the floor. Good morning,
16:43thank you very much for the
16:45introduction. Good morning to everyone
16:47who is joining us for this session. As
16:50mentioned, there are around 64,000
16:52people registered, including people who
16:54are not lawyers. I fully appreciate
16:58your enrollment in this protection
17:00diploma course organized by the Supreme
17:02Court of Justice and the Nation,
17:04because I believe that it is not enough
17:07to know what our rights are, but also
17:09how we can exercise them. I myself took
17:13this diploma course several years ago
17:15and I hope that what we see in this
17:16session will be useful to you. Well, as
17:20mentioned, I am Alejandra Loya Guerrero
17:23. I currently work as a secretary of
17:26study and account in the Supreme Court
17:28of Justice of the Nation and I am
17:30assigned to the presentation of Chief
17:31Justice Hugo Aguilar Ortiz. For those
17:36who are not visually aware of the
17:37broadcast, I am writing to you. I am a
17:40woman, I have loose blond hair. I am 34
17:42years old. I am currently in my office,
17:44I am dressed in black, in black. I am
17:47wearing a black blouse and a black
17:49jacket. Well, let's get started. Since
17:53this is the first class of this course,
17:56I would like to start by explaining
17:58what an amparo trial is and why it is
18:00so important for our legal system. If
18:03you want, you can click on the next
18:05presentation. Okay. What we are going
18:11to try to resolve in this session is,
18:14well, first to ask ourselves: what is
18:16an amparo trial and what is its origin?
18:19Which bodies resolve amparo trials? How
18:22was the current institutional design
18:24formed? What did the judicial reform
18:26and the reforms to the Amparo Law
18:28modify? And what implications do they
18:31have for all the people who resort to
18:32the system and for the people who judge
18:34them? And the next one, please. To
18:40explain, the amparo trial is a legal
18:42proceeding available to every
18:44individual currently in Mexico,
18:46regardless of their age or nationality,
18:48and it serves to challenge any act of
18:50authority that might be considered a
18:52violation of our fundamental human
18:54rights. I will try to explain it in the
18:59simplest way possible and I will try
19:01not to fall into legal technicalities
19:03so that it is accessible to the entire
19:05community that accompanies us. Unlike
19:09other processes, for example, a civil
19:11trial that is between two individuals
19:13or a labor trial that is between the
19:15employer and the worker, criminal
19:17trials in which the State brings an
19:19accusation against a person, in the
19:21amparo trial, what will be examined is
19:24the actions of an authority. Whether
19:27the public authority acted within its
19:29powers and within the limits imposed by
19:31the Constitution itself. In other words
19:34, it is a mechanism that protects all
19:36of our human rights against abuses of
19:38authority. And well, this would be the
19:42distinguishing feature and for that
19:44reason the amparo trial is classified
19:46as a constitutional review trial. In
19:50other words, we are going to see if
19:52what the responsible authority did in
19:53this case is in accordance with the
19:55parameter of constitutional regularity
19:57review. Um, the next one, please. Okay,
20:03now let's take a look to see how we got
20:05here and also so that we all know where
20:07the amparo trial comes from. Let's see,
20:10the amparo trial is a trial that began
20:12in Mexico, in the Constitution of
20:14Yucatan in 1841. Manuel Crescencio
20:20Rejón is known as the father of the
20:22amparo trial because he was the one who
20:24proposed in the Constitution of Yucatan
20:26of 1841 a list of rights and a legal
20:28mechanism to protect them, the amparo
20:30trial. Later, in 1847, Mariano Otero
20:38moved the institution of amparo to the
20:40federal level by issuing his dissenting
20:43opinion on the amparo trial, in which
20:45he proposed the amparo trial as a means
20:48of protecting people against power. And
20:52this proposal made by María Otero in
20:54her dissenting opinion is reflected in
20:56the constitutive and reform act in
21:02which the validity of the Constitution
21:04of 1824 was restored, which established
21:07the Mexican Republic as a federation.
21:12So, here in this Constitution, or
21:14rather in this constitutive and reform
21:17act, Article 25 establishes that the
21:19federal courts have the duty to protect
21:21any person against attacks by the
21:24powers of the federation or the states.
21:29Look, I'm going to read you the article
21:31so you can see how it was written in
21:33this reform act. Article 25 says: "The
21:37courts of the Federation shall protect
21:39any inhabitant of the Republic in the
21:42exercise and preservation of the rights
21:44granted to them by this Constitution
21:46and the constitutional laws, against
21:49any attack by the Legislative and
21:51Executive powers, whether of the
21:53Federation or of the States, said
21:55courts limiting themselves to granting
21:57their protection in the particular case
21:59in question, without making any general
22:03statement regarding the law or the act
22:05that motivated it." This last part that
22:08I read to you, which says: "Limiting
22:10said courts to granting their
22:12protection in the particular case,
22:14without making any statement regarding
22:16the law or the act that motivates it",
22:18is what was known as the Otero formula,
22:20or rather, the principle of relativity
22:22of sentences, which is a principle that
22:25is still in force in the amparo trial
22:27to this day. But let's see, we have to
22:32keep in mind, as we read it, that
22:35article 25 was actually designed for an
22:38amparo trial that was promoted for
22:41legal interest. Right now, later in the
22:45session, we are going to see what we
22:47mean by legal interest, because in
22:49reality, with the new reforms that we
22:51are going to see, when the concept of
22:53legitimate interest is introduced, it
22:55already allows us to modulate the
22:57principle of relativity of judgments so
22:59that, if a person goes to an amparo
23:01trial, it does not prevent the
23:03protection of federal justice from
23:05going beyond, so to speak, the legal
23:07sphere of the person who goes to the
23:09amparo trial and that, in doing so,
23:13other people benefit, especially when
23:15the person who goes comes, for example,
23:18representing a group, right? Well, then
23:22, according to this principle of
23:24relativity of judgments, the judgment
23:26must exclusively protect the person who
23:28promotes the lawsuit in the specific
23:30case without making a general statement
23:32about the challenged rule, although,
23:34well, this, as I told you, has been
23:35modulated. Then in 1849, if you can
23:39give it to me, it seems to me that it
23:41is the following. Yes. In 1849, the
23:47first amparo ruling was issued in which
23:50an individual was protected against the
23:53public authorities. This case took
23:56place in San Luis Potosí and is the
23:58very famous Verastigi case. How did
24:01this Verastigi case come about? Well,
24:04as a result of the negotiations of the
24:06Treaty of Guadalupe, I don't know if
24:08you remember what the Treaty of
24:10Guadalupe was, which was a treaty of
24:12peace, friendship, and territorial
24:14boundaries between Mexico and the
24:16United States. And it is the very
24:20famous treaty through which Mexico
24:23ceded much of its territory, which is
24:25what we now know as the states of
24:28California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas,
24:31Nevada, and well, much of our country.
24:36So, based on the negotiations of this
24:38treaty through which Mexico was already
24:40ceding part of its territory, various
24:43armed uprisings began to arise
24:44throughout the country. And in
24:49Querétaro, specifically, which at that
24:51time was under the jurisdiction of the
24:53state of San Luis Potosí, the Sierra
24:55Gorda rebellion took place, in which
24:57our complainant Manuel Verastegi
24:59participated. What happened as a result
25:03of this rebellion? Verastegui was
25:05arrested and later released by the
25:08governor of San Luis Potosi, General
25:11Julian de los Reyes. But don't think he
25:16just released him, he did so on the
25:18condition that he leave the state, so
25:20he decreed Verastegui's exile. So,
25:24Manuel Verastegui filed an amparo
25:27lawsuit in what was then the only
25:29district court in San Luis Potosi,
25:32headed by Judge Pedro Samano, who was
25:35also acting as the deputy judge in
25:37charge of the court. Well, the
25:42interesting thing about this case, and
25:45the way I like to explain it, is that
25:47the amparo lawsuit was granted solely
25:50on the basis of Article 25 of the 1847
25:53reform act, without there being a
25:55regulatory law on the amparo lawsuit at
25:58that time, as is the case now. There
26:03was no procedure, no deadlines, no
26:05procedural rules, but the only basis
26:08available was Article 25 of the 1847
26:11Reform Act, according to which federal
26:14courts were to protect individuals. So,
26:18notice how, starting with this case,
26:20the judges began to carry out a
26:22constitutional review in which they
26:24recognized that they were bound by the
26:26Constitution without the need for a
26:28regulatory law. Well, because the judge
26:32could not have determined that the
26:33trial should not proceed due to a lack
26:35of law, but he did not do so. Instead,
26:39on August 3, 1849, he issued a ruling
26:41in which he granted protection by the
26:43federal justice system and ordered that
26:46the complainant's freedom and rights be
26:48respected. Well, the three elements
26:53that I really like about this ruling
26:54are that, as we were saying, the trial
26:56was conducted and resolved without
26:58there being a law regulating it. That
27:01is to say, the right to obtain judicial
27:04protection was not subject to the prior
27:06existence of a procedure and it is an
27:08idea that still exists in the first
27:10article of the constitution. Well,
27:15secondly, the challenged act consisted
27:17of an order from the local political
27:19power and, well, the first amparo in
27:21our history was not filed against an
27:23individual or against a judicial body,
27:26but against a governor. And in other
27:29words, this clearly shows how the
27:30amparo was born with a focus on
27:32controlling power, right? And as a
27:35third element that seems very relevant
27:37to me, is that in the ruling itself,
27:40the judge warned that he was willing to
27:43enforce his decision and preserve the
27:45dignity of the court. That is exactly
27:48what is stated in the ruling. And so,
27:50from the first resolution granting the
27:52amparo, the district judge was
27:54concerned with seeing how that ruling
27:56was going to be complied with. I repeat
27:59, there were no regulatory laws, there
28:01was nothing that empowered the judge to
28:03use public force or remove the
28:05authority from his position or fine him
28:07as happens today, right? But in the
28:11ruling itself, the judge establishes
28:12that, well, in order for the federal
28:14judicial power to be legitimized, it is
28:16necessary that the dignity of the court
28:18be respected, as he says, and that the
28:19rulings be complied with. And, well,
28:23the enforcement of amparo rulings has
28:25been a problem as old as the amparo
28:28trial itself. Well, we will see that
28:32when we examine article 192 of the
28:35amended Amparo Law. We see that this
28:39concern remains current, specifically
28:40regarding whether or not the amparo
28:42rulings can be fully complied with in
28:44their entirety. Well, after this, and
28:48if we can go to the next one, in 1857
28:54the figure of the amparo trial was
28:57reintroduced into the Constitution and
29:00now, yes, in 1869 the first amparo law
29:03was issued. Now, in the 1917
29:07Constitution, which is the current one,
29:10the amparo trial is provided for in
29:13articles 103 and 107. And well, as a
29:19regulatory law, the amparo law was
29:21issued in 1935, which, as we know, was
29:24later repealed and the new amparo law
29:27was issued, which is the one currently
29:30in force, which is the one from 2013.
29:33And so throughout the 19th century, the
29:37amparo trial was primarily against
29:39abuses of political power. And why do I
29:42say political power? Because until then
29:44, until that moment, we did not have
29:46what we now know as direct amparo, but
29:48rather against acts of the executive
29:49and the legislative, that is, of the
29:51political power. And the files of that
29:54era of the 19th century amparo. Let's
29:58see how the matters that were actually
30:01processed in the amparo process were
30:03matters related to attacks on personal
30:05freedom, exile, and violations of
30:11property rights and, consequently,
30:13expropriations. Now, when the guarantee
30:18of legality was inserted in Article 14
30:21of the Constitution, the amparo process
30:23allowed for the verification of the
30:26correct application of the law by the
30:29judicial bodies. This gave rise to the
30:32amparo process against sentences, which
30:34, as I mentioned, is now known as
30:35direct amparo. And this opening
30:39produces two legal consequences. Well,
30:43the first, which is similar to the
30:46guarantee process, is that any person
30:49who does so is empowered to request the
30:52review of any sentence that affects
30:55them; but this caused the volume of
30:58matters that were seen in the amparo
31:01courts to grow exorbitantly and, well,
31:04the backlog that has accompanied the
31:07institution since then began to occur,
31:10right? Therefore, in order to somewhat
31:14relieve the functions of the Supreme
31:16Court of Justice of the Nation, the
31:18collegiate circuit courts were created
31:20in 1951, precisely to address this
31:22issue. And that is why it is said that
31:26the collegiate courts exercise a power
31:29delegated by the Supreme Court of
31:31Justice of the Nation, because, well,
31:33before that power originally
31:35corresponded to the Supreme Court. Hm.
31:40Next, please. Okay. Now, what I love
31:45about the amparo trial is that it is a
31:47Mexican institution that has
31:49transcended to the international arena.
31:53For example, did you know that the
31:55amparo trial led to the inclusion of
31:57the right to an effective remedy in the
31:59Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
32:05If you look at the effective judicial
32:06remedy inserted in Article 8, well,
32:08that is a Mexican proposal. And during
32:12the development of the deliberation and
32:14approval of the Universal Declaration
32:16of Human Rights, several proposals were
32:18considered regarding the principle of
32:20effective remedy. Among them, and this
32:25is documented, is that it was proposed
32:28to introduce this Anglo-Saxon figure of
32:30the Aveas Corpus. This, the avias
32:35corpus is a resource that exists in
32:37other countries through which the
32:39legality of a detention is examined,
32:41right? In other words, when a person's
32:44freedom is deprived, but that is the
32:46only thing that is reviewed. So, in the
32:50debate, it was considered that this
32:53figure was very specific because it
32:55only focused on the physical integrity
32:58of the person detained. But the
33:03proposal that the Mexican delegation
33:06brought was the one that prevailed
33:08because the appeal for protection
33:10functioned as and still functions today
33:13as a judicial mechanism to counteract
33:15abuses of power in all its possible
33:18forms, right? So, in other words, the
33:22amparo trial constituted a process
33:24against the abuse of power in all its
33:26forms, not only against the deprivation
33:28of liberty, but against any act of
33:30authority that violated human rights.
33:34Then exactly the same thing happened in
33:401948 when the American Declaration of
33:43the Rights and Duties of Man was
33:45drafted and this effective remedy was
33:48introduced in its Article 18, right?
33:53Then from there it goes to Article 25
33:55of the American Convention on Human
33:58Rights, which, well, establishes that
34:00it has to be a quick and effective
34:03remedy, right? Simple too. Now we can
34:07move on to the next one. As a result of
34:15this, in 2015, that is, about 10 years
34:18ago or so, 11, the international
34:21advisory committee of UNESCO's Memory
34:24of the World program recognized 31
34:27Mexican judicial files corresponding to
34:30amparo trials processed before federal
34:33courts between 1869 and 1935. Of these
34:39cases, 18 were resolved by the Supreme
34:41Court of Justice of the Nation and 13
34:43by the district courts. And this
34:47selection was made from among 275,000
34:50files, which are those that currently
34:52comprise the historical collection of
34:54the Supreme Court, and about 87,000 are
34:56safeguarded by district courts. What
35:02was proven or accredited before this
35:05international organization was that
35:07precisely, imagine, 80 years before the
35:10drafting of the Universal Declaration,
35:12Mexican protection already operated as
35:15an effective remedy against abuses of
35:17power and enjoyed social trust, even
35:20during the most authoritarian periods
35:22that our country has seen. And the
35:27rights documented in those files
35:30comprise everything from property,
35:32equality, and public freedoms, to the
35:34guarantee of legal security, access to
35:37legal resources, and the protection of
35:39life. Well, as I was saying, especially
35:44in times of war, the protection
35:46provided reached out to both the
35:48national citizens and the foreigners
35:50alike. I want you to know that these
35:53collections are open to public
35:54consultation. Well, it says there: "in
35:58the houses of the judiciary", but well,
36:00we already know that they are the
36:02houses of legal knowledge; and they are
36:04also kept in the Center for Commentary
36:06and Analysis, Archives and Compilation
36:08of Laws of the Supreme Court of Justice
36:10of the Nation, around 45 cities in the
36:13interior of the Republic. And well,
36:17these files that are recognized by
36:19UNESCO are located in Campeche,
36:21Cuernavaca, Guadalajara, Hermosillo,
36:23Monterrey and Querétaro. So if anyone
36:26sees us from those states, well, they
36:28can also go and visit Mexico City. Well
36:32, now that that has been said, we can
36:35move on to the next one. Okay. Now,
36:41articles 103 and 107 of the
36:43Constitution and the first article of
36:45the Amparo Law will establish that the
36:48amparo trial proceeds against general
36:50norms, acts, against general norms,
36:52acts or omissions of authority that
36:54violate human rights. The protected
36:58rights are those recognized both in the
37:01Constitution and in international
37:03treaties to which the Mexican State is
37:06a party. I would also like to clarify
37:11that as this legal concept, the amparo
37:14lawsuit, has evolved, now the amparo
37:16lawsuit also applies to private
37:18contracts, not only contracts between
37:20public authorities, but only when this
37:23private act is carried out as an
37:25equivalent act by an authority. And
37:30that was found; it is enshrined in
37:31article five, section two, second
37:33paragraph of the Amparo Law, if you
37:35want to review it, which states that
37:37private individuals have the status of
37:39responsible authority when they carry
37:41out acts equivalent to those of an
37:43authority that affect rights and whose
37:45functions are determined by a general
37:47rule. Well, up to this point we know
37:56what the amparo lawsuit is for, and now
37:58let's move on to who the people are who
38:01resolve these amparo lawsuits. If we
38:04can go to the next one. To the next one
38:10, yes. Oh, thank you very much. Well,
38:18the indirect empano lawsuit. Okay,
38:22let's see, these are the federal courts
38:24, right? The Supreme Court of Justice
38:27of the Nation, the Electoral Tribunal,
38:29the Regional Plenaries, the Circuit
38:30Collegiate Courts, the Appeals
38:32Collegiate Courts, and the District
38:34Courts. In turn, well, we know that
38:36there are two bodies, one in charge of
38:38administration, which is the Judicial
38:40Administration Body, and another in
38:41charge of discipline, which is the
38:43Judicial Disciplinary Court. The next
38:45one. Okay, now we're going to see what
38:51each body is going to decide. The
38:54District Courts. The first instance
38:57that resolves an indirect amparo trial,
39:00which is the one we saw that proceeds
39:02against general rules, contracts of
39:04administrative authorities, contracts
39:06issued outside of a trial or after it
39:08has concluded, contracts that are
39:10impossible to repair, which you will
39:12see in the following classes. Well,
39:14what does all this mean, right?
39:15Contracts that affect the people who
39:17are the subject of the procedure and
39:19contracts that affect personal freedom.
39:22So, what is going to be important?
39:25Before them, a request is made and a
39:28decision will be made on the suspension
39:30; that the suspension is a
39:32precautionary measure that will
39:34provisionally paralyze the claimed act
39:36during the proceedings of the trial, or
39:39it will allow you to provisionally
39:41enjoy the use and enjoyment of the
39:43violated right when the appearance of
39:46the right is proven. The district
39:51courts will also hear ordinary federal
39:54proceedings in the first instance. Then
39:59we have the collegiate courts of appeal
40:02, which replaced the unitary circuit
40:04courts in 2021, and here the appeals
40:07against the judgments of the district
40:09courts that issued ordinary federal
40:12proceedings in the first instance will
40:14be resolved; and, in turn, they will
40:16hear indirect amparo proceedings or
40:19contracts issued by another collegiate
40:21court of appeal in federal proceedings.
40:27The next one. Okay. Then we have the
40:33collegiate circuit courts that resolve
40:35the direct amparo, which is the one
40:36that proceeds against final judgments,
40:38awards and resolutions that put an end
40:40to the trial. They will also have
40:44jurisdiction to hear appeals for review
40:46against indirect amparo rulings issued
40:48by district courts or by the collegiate
40:50courts of appeal. Well, this would
40:55exhaust the instance for most cases,
40:57unless an appeal proceeds, such as a
40:59direct amparo review, which could be
41:01heard by the Supreme Court. But in
41:06practical terms, this is where most
41:08cases end. Well, the regional plenary
41:13sessions will resolve any conflicts of
41:16opinion held by collegiate courts in
41:18their own region, as well as any
41:20conflicts of jurisdiction that may
41:23arise between them. So, what will the
41:27Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation
41:29hear? How does a case reach the Supreme
41:31Court? Well, the Court hears
41:34constitutional disputes and actions of
41:37unconstitutionality that are provided
41:39for in Article 105 of our Constitution.
41:44It will also resolve appeals for review
41:46when there is a problem of
41:48constitutionality of general rules or
41:50the direct interpretation of the
41:52Constitution. It is important to
41:55mention here that the collegiate courts
41:57would not have jurisdiction to resolve
41:59amparo review. When the
42:02constitutionality of a federal
42:05regulation or an international treaty
42:07is challenged, the Court retained its
42:09original power; therefore, the
42:12collegiate courts must bring the matter
42:14before the Court for it to resolve it,
42:17unless the Court has already resolved
42:19that specific issue and there is case
42:22law on which to base it. But anyway, it
42:27means that the Court will not hear
42:28other appeals for review in which the
42:30constitutionality of federal
42:31regulations is not challenged. No, the
42:34Court will also be able to exercise the
42:36power of attraction or reassume its
42:38original jurisdiction when dealing with
42:41matters of national significance and
42:43the reassumption of original
42:44jurisdiction when dealing with other
42:46types of laws, right? I believe that
42:50due to its importance and significance,
42:52the Court should establish the criteria
42:53and will also resolve the
42:57contradictions of criteria that arise
42:59between regional plenary sessions or
43:01between courts or between the regional
43:03plenary session and another collegiate
43:05court from another region and will also
43:08issue a general declaration of
43:09unconstitutionality. This is extremely
43:12relevant and from here we can see how
43:14the political function of the Supreme
43:16Court is seen, because in order to
43:18create jurisprudence, the circuit
43:20collegiate courts need five issues to
43:22be resolved in the same direction. If
43:25they declare the unconstitutionality of
43:27the norm in five issues, they can send
43:29it to the Supreme Court so that it can
43:30issue a general declaration of
43:32unconstitutionality. On the other hand,
43:36when the Court resolves an issue by a
43:38majority of six people or of the
43:40justices, it also issues jurisprudence.
43:44And if with this vote the
43:45unconstitutionality of a norm is
43:47declared, the Court can make a general
43:49declaration of unconstitutionality. So,
43:52many times the power of attraction can
43:54be exercised on these types of issues,
43:57for example, as we have recently seen,
43:59the Court has just resolved an
44:01injunction in which the crime of
44:04abortion in Tamaulipas is claimed. In
44:07order for a general declaration of
44:09unconstitutionality to be issued, if
44:10the collegiate courts resolve, we would
44:12need five issues resolved in the same
44:14direction. But if you know the Court,
44:17we only need one with a majority of six
44:19votes for a general declaration of
44:21unconstitutionality to be issued. Now,
44:25um, the next one, please. I don't know
44:30if I'm moving too fast. At the end of
44:33the session we're going to have a
44:35question and answer section so that if
44:37any of this raises questions for you,
44:39you can write them down. Now, one issue
44:44that I think is extremely important for
44:47understanding the context of judicial
44:49reform is that you see how all review
44:53bodies are made up of collegiate bodies
44:56, not only national courts, but also
44:59international courts. Look, for example
45:02, at the Inter-American Court of Human
45:04Rights. Well, in Mexico, the Collegiate
45:10Circuit Courts are made up of three
45:12magistrates, and the Supreme Court of
45:14Justice is currently made up of nine
45:16justices. And this distinction is very
45:20important to me, for several reasons,
45:23right? Because first, I mean, how does
45:27prior deliberation help us? The bill is
45:29discussed before being sentenced. And
45:33of course, deliberation is something
45:35super important for a collegiate body,
45:37because the decision is submitted for
45:40discussion, the person in charge
45:42formulates a project and the remaining
45:44people can disagree or give more
45:46arguments to support the sentence. And
45:49obviously after this deliberation
45:51process, which is also public, the
45:53sentence can have greater legitimacy
45:55before society. It also helps us to
45:58control error. The independent analysis
46:03of the rest of the judges on the same
46:05legal problem will allow us to identify
46:08deficiencies that a single analysis
46:10could omit, especially taking into
46:12account that it is the last instance,
46:15right? In other words, we have to
46:17minimize error as much as possible. It
46:20is also important to record the dissent
46:23. They say that today's dissenting
46:26opinions will be tomorrow's sentences.
46:29And well, that is precisely what it is
46:31about: the dissenting opinion leaves a
46:32written record of the interpretation
46:34that did not prevail, and this record
46:39of the dissenting opinion feeds the
46:42legal debate, guides the parties and
46:45can also motivate the modification of
46:47that criterion later. It is also a
46:55guarantee of judicial independence
46:58because it disperses, I mean, it
47:00disperses pressure, but because it
47:03disperses the influence that a judge
47:06may have on the rest of the members,
47:09right? Which is more viable than on a
47:13body that deliberates and votes.
47:17Collegiality will then be a guarantee
47:20of judicial independence and not just a
47:22decision-making technique, right? And
47:28so the criteria that support collegiate
47:30courts can be subject to challenge,
47:33complaint and resolution. And from this
47:36procedure of challenging criteria, a
47:39mandatory jurisprudence will derive for
47:41the entire country. What does this mean
47:44? Because the law is not black and
47:47white, as Working said, we do not have
47:49Judge Hercules who is going to resolve
47:52all cases in a certain way. There will
47:55be judges who consider that a matter
47:57should be resolved in one way and
47:59others in another. And precisely this
48:05contradiction of criteria formulates,
48:08well, the repetition of the word, the
48:11contradiction of criteria, which is now
48:13what will generate jurisprudence. Which
48:17of the two was right? Or maybe neither.
48:20Well, that is also important because
48:25our decisions will not depend on the
48:27conviction of a single person. That's
48:31right, important. If we can continue,
48:39because with the judicial reform of
48:412024, the Supreme Court will be
48:43concentrated exclusively in plenary
48:46session; although, well, in 2026 the
48:48possibility is foreseen that it will
48:51also function with two sections, but it
48:56is important because, precisely in the
48:59statement of reasons, it warns of the
49:01importance of matters of national
49:03importance being debated by, by, by, by
49:06the entire plenary court, right? Now we
49:10also have to see how the Supreme Court
49:13of Justice of the Nation is integrated
49:16and how it has been integrated. And
49:19here I will explain why it has
49:21undergone various changes. As you can
49:24see in this table, since the 1917
49:26Constitution came into effect, the
49:28selection method has changed, as has
49:31the term of office of the judges. And
49:35here we see that, for example, in its
49:38original version, Article 94 of the
49:40Constitution provided that the Court
49:42would be comprised of 11 justices and
49:45would always function as a plenary
49:47session. This composition later changed
49:51. In 1928, it was increased to 16
49:53justices and began to function as a
49:55plenary session in three chambers. In
50:001934, the number of justices grew and
50:03it began operating in four chambers,
50:06plus the plenary. And as you can see,
50:11this is precisely when, as I was
50:13telling you, in 1951, the collegiate
50:18courts were created to address the
50:20backlog that the Court was beginning to
50:22present; and an auxiliary chamber and
50:25supernary justices were also created,
50:27which eventually numbered up to five to
50:29comprise said auxiliary chamber,
50:31totaling 26 justices. And well, this is
50:35where the Court reached its largest
50:37membership. And then, well, in 1994,
50:43after a comprehensive reform of the
50:45Judicial Branch, the Court returned to
50:48only 11 ministers who could function in
50:51two chambers and in plenary session. As
50:57we know, with the judicial reform in
50:592024, the number of members was reduced
51:01to nine, the chambers were eliminated,
51:03so the Court returned to operating only
51:05in plenary session. The next one, well,
51:10and in 2026 with the possibility of
51:12incorporating two sections for
51:14processing that have not yet been
51:16implemented. The next one, please. Okay
51:21. That said, the method of selecting
51:25ministers has also changed. From 1917
51:32to 1928, ministers were appointed by
51:36the Congress of the Union. But notice
51:40how interesting it was, it was based on
51:43candidacies proposed by each of the
51:45state legislatures, one for each entity
51:48. Then, each state would send its
51:51candidate, and subsequently they were
51:53chosen by the UN Congress. From 1928 to
51:591994, which is 66 years, appointments
52:03were made by direct appointment by the
52:08President of the Republic. The office
52:13of the Presidency of the Republic held
52:15the authority to appoint ministers
52:17directly, while the Senate was tasked
52:19solely with the responsibility of
52:21approving or rejecting that appointment
52:23. From 1994 to 2024, for 30 years, a
52:30shortlist was established, proposed by
52:33the head of the Federal Executive
52:35Branch, and the appointment was made by
52:38a vote of two-thirds of the members
52:41present in the Senate. And from 2024
52:45onwards, it was a popular election for
52:49a term of 12 years. The previous regime
52:53contemplated that it would be for 15
52:54years, and now that number has been
52:56reduced to 12 years. But thank you very
53:03much. But there is something I want to
53:05specify. Although the Constitution was
53:08amended to specify that the term of
53:09office for ministers would be 12 years,
53:14special rules were in force for the
53:16election that just took place in 2025.
53:22Here, the Constitution established a
53:24specific regime in its third transitory
53:27article, since for ministers who won
53:30the judicial election, it said that
53:32they would have 11-year terms, the
53:35first five with the most votes, and
53:37eight-year terms, the last four with
53:40the most votes. In other words, not all
53:45of them have the same term of office.
53:49And the assignment criterion was the
53:52following. As I was saying, it was
53:54determined based on the number of votes
53:56obtained, with 11 years corresponding
53:57to those with the highest number of
53:59votes. And this rule was not, or rather
54:02, it was not applicable also by express
54:05provision of the third transitory
54:07article to ministers who were already
54:10in office and who were elected. And
54:13here it was established that they would
54:15hold office for the remaining term of
54:17their original appointment, that is,
54:19the 15-year regime. Now, on the other
54:24hand, the designation process for
54:26circuit judges and magistrates has also
54:28undergone a significant change. Note
54:32that from 1917 to 1994, judges were
54:38directly elected by the Supreme Court
54:40of Justice of the Nation. Then, it was
54:45not until 1900, from 1994 to 2024, that
54:49, as we mentioned, there was a reform
54:52that reformed the entire Judicial
54:54Branch. The Federal Judicial Council
54:57was created and it was also established
55:02that the appointment of judges and
55:04magistrates would be through
55:07competitive examinations and that they
55:12could be internal and free. The Organic
55:15Law of the Judicial Branch of the
55:16Federation was also created, which
55:18establishes it; Furthermore, the
55:20judicial career is elevated to
55:22constitutional status in Article 100 of
55:24the Constitution, which establishes
55:26that the principles that will govern
55:32the judicial career will be the
55:34principles of excellence, objectivity,
55:36impartiality, professionalism, and
55:38independence. It must also be said that
55:43open competitive examinations did not
55:46require prior membership in the Federal
55:48Judicial Branch, but rather that any
55:51external person could participate to
55:53become a district judge. For example,
55:57you can see the general agreement,
55:59dated 2/2000 of the plenary session of
56:01the Federal Judicial Council, which was
56:03an open competitive examination, so to
56:05speak, right? Then, as of 2024, this
56:12will change through, as we know, the
56:15publication of the judicial reform in
56:19which the appointment of judges and
56:22magistrates was to be by popular
56:25election. The Federal Judicial Council
56:30will also be replaced by two different
56:33bodies: the judicial administration
56:35body competent in administrative
56:38matters and the Judicial Disciplinary
56:40Court competent in disciplinary matters
56:43. Next up, please, there it is. Well,
56:55it's a bit of what we've seen. So we're
57:00taking a break now to see because those
57:03are the main changes in the judicial
57:05reform. We'll see the main changes next
57:08hour regarding the protection law. Yes.
57:25Thank you very much, teacher. I would
57:26like to take a break,
57:32okay? For about 5 minutes, please, so
57:34as not to overwhelm you too much.
57:37Perfect. So, if it seems okay to you,
57:40we'll be back at 11: 4 in the morning.
57:44Okay, perfect. Thank you. You. Ah.
1:04:19Thank you very much for the break.
1:04:22We're back now. We'll just wait a
1:04:25moment for teacher Alejandra to join us
1:04:27. Thank you very much. Hello, we're
1:04:46back now.
1:04:55Hello. Yes, here I am.
1:04:57Perfect. Thank you very much.
1:04:59If I can hear myself, it says that my
1:05:01connection is unstable. No, but I can
1:05:04hear you well.
1:05:06Thank you. Perfect. Oh, sorry, I can't
1:05:32find where the is. Okay, this is, I
1:05:37mean, the first hour was like a review
1:05:40of what the amparo trial is, who
1:05:43resolves it, and how the way of
1:05:45choosing the judges has changed until
1:05:48now that we know that it is by popular
1:05:51vote. Now, on the other side, we are
1:05:54going to see the second topic of the
1:05:56class, which is the reforms to the
1:05:57amparo law. And I would also like to do
1:06:02this same review of the amparo law,
1:06:07okay? Uh, I am going to tell you a
1:06:09little bit about the advances that have
1:06:11been made in recent years. Well, first,
1:06:16the Mexican Constitution that we
1:06:18currently have was created in 1917, as
1:06:21we all know. And what makes it so
1:06:24special is that it is the first Social
1:06:26Constitution in the world. What does
1:06:29this mean? That it is the first Social
1:06:31Constitution in the world? That it is
1:06:34the first Constitution that includes
1:06:36social rights, the rights of peasants,
1:06:38of workers, the right to education?
1:06:41What is it that will shape the way
1:06:43Mexican constitutionalism is understood
1:06:46during the 20th century? No, it has
1:06:49even been a model for the Latin
1:06:51American region. And, well, we have a
1:06:56first stage, as we know, in Mexico: an
1:07:00authoritarian stage, which was a very
1:07:03important stage during the 20th century
1:07:06, in which there was an authoritarian
1:07:09system in Mexico and human rights,
1:07:12although they were in the Constitution,
1:07:15as we know, before they could be
1:07:18enforced as such in the courts, were
1:07:22rather instruments of political control
1:07:24in the hands of the presidency of the
1:07:26Republic. It must be remembered that
1:07:28after the revolution, the figure of the
1:07:30president of the Republic or the
1:07:32presidency of the Republic was a very
1:07:34strong figure. We were governed by a
1:07:37presidential system and it was not
1:07:40believed that the courts could
1:07:42substantially control the political
1:07:44powers and it was rather like a kind of
1:07:47promise that the revolution had made to
1:07:49the main groups that mobilized and
1:07:52fought during the revolution. And the
1:07:56peasant and social bases that remained
1:07:58after the revolution knew that they had
1:08:00social rights, but they did not have
1:08:03strong instruments to demand them. It
1:08:05should be remembered that, as we saw in
1:08:07the presentation, in 1917, appointments
1:08:14were based on the candidacies made by
1:08:18the states, right? And then those
1:08:23candidacies were elected, but they had
1:08:27a term of 6 years, which coincidentally
1:08:31was the same as the 6 years of the
1:08:34presidency of the Republic. So, this
1:08:40means that for much of the 20th century
1:08:43in Mexico there was not such a clear
1:08:46idea of constitutional supremacy; that
1:08:48is to say, that the Constitution was a
1:08:51binding legal norm against political
1:08:54power, or rather it was, let's say,
1:08:56something like a promise left by the
1:08:59Revolution and that had been put on
1:09:01paper, but what remained was what is
1:09:04known as idolatry before the Revolution
1:09:06. But what was the role of the Supreme
1:09:11Court at that time? We are talking
1:09:14about the period from 1917 to 1994.
1:09:16Well, the role of the Supreme Court
1:09:19during this period was very secondary.
1:09:23It was not a role of controlling
1:09:24political power. It provided legal
1:09:27legitimacy that coincided with the
1:09:28designs of the presidency of the
1:09:30Republic and the rulers. I love to give
1:09:36an example: if you go to a weekly
1:09:37magazine and type in "marriage", "
1:09:39Chinese race", you will see a case law,
1:09:41or rather, a case that the Court
1:09:43resolved in which it states that the
1:09:45prohibition against Mexican people in
1:09:47Sonora being able to marry people of
1:09:49the Chinese race did not violate the
1:09:51principle of equality, because no
1:09:53Mexican person who wanted to marry a
1:09:55person of the Chinese race would be
1:09:57able to. So, since it was applied
1:10:00equally to everyone, there was no
1:10:01violation of the principle of equality.
1:10:05A ruling that we know would be
1:10:06unthinkable for any court to ever
1:10:08pronounce itself in such a way,
1:10:09wouldn't it? Why is that? because we
1:10:13have already given content to what the
1:10:14principle of equality means and we
1:10:16already know that it is a substantive
1:10:18equality. But anyway, in 1934 there was
1:10:25the reform that I was telling you about
1:10:27that reduced the term in which
1:10:28ministers had been appointed to the 6
1:10:30years that the President of the
1:10:31Republic lasted. And this coincidence
1:10:34is what caused there to be very strong
1:10:36control over ministers and this affects
1:10:39the methods of constitutional
1:10:41interpretation that indicate that they
1:10:44are practically literal methods of the
1:10:46norm. The provision is read literally
1:10:50and at most the explanatory statement
1:10:52of the reforms was used to unravel the
1:10:54will of whoever created the norm. That
1:10:57is, the legislator. But the judges
1:10:59believed that what they had to do was
1:11:01unravel that will and could not impose
1:11:03a methodology other than that desired
1:11:05by the legislator. In other words, an
1:11:08interpretation that conforms to the
1:11:09current one was not valid as a method
1:11:10of interpretation and creative method.
1:11:13It was not valid for judges to create
1:11:15rights through jurisprudence, but
1:11:16rather it was a way of aligning
1:11:18themselves with the authoritarian
1:11:19regime. What was actually resolved were
1:11:22issues of legality. At that time, well,
1:11:26if you look at the theories of that
1:11:27time, the law was very formalistic.
1:11:30Well, it was believed that the judge
1:11:32could not create law, but that his
1:11:34function was simply to apply the norm;
1:11:36and, well, there is a veneration of the
1:11:40constitutional process of the amparo
1:11:42trial itself, not as a constitutional
1:11:44process to protect rights, but to
1:11:46enforce the law without worrying about
1:11:48whether the substance of the law
1:11:50violated rights or not. But then a
1:11:53reform came that was driven by this,
1:11:56that is, it began to change because of
1:11:59the democratic transition of 1900-67.
1:12:04Because, what happened in 1967?
1:12:07Deputies of proportional representation
1:12:09were incorporated and it was a rather
1:12:11long period in which the political
1:12:13system opened up and we became a plural
1:12:15political system. There is no longer
1:12:19just one political system, but other
1:12:21political forces are beginning to
1:12:22occupy these spaces, first in local
1:12:24governments, then in the federal
1:12:26chambers, and then in the presidency of
1:12:28the Republic in 2000. It is not a very
1:12:30broad transition that lasts many years,
1:12:32but it is very important because during
1:12:34this stage of democratic transition
1:12:36there was a constitutional reform with
1:12:38President Cillo, the one we mentioned
1:12:40in 1994, which is one of the pillars of
1:12:45the neoliberal ideology that prevailed
1:12:48at that time in the country. I tell you
1:12:55that this stage of democratic
1:12:57transition is very important because it
1:12:59means that the figure of the president
1:13:01can no longer fulfill the role of
1:13:03resolving all political conflicts
1:13:05because they no longer belong to the
1:13:07same party, for example, between
1:13:09governors, municipal presidents,
1:13:11deputies, etc. There is therefore no
1:13:13need to create an impartial third party
1:13:15that can resolve these political
1:13:17problems given the decline of
1:13:19presidentialism. Hence the role of the
1:13:22Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation.
1:13:25And in 1994, the action of
1:13:27unconstitutionality and conflicts of
1:13:29jurisdiction was created. Hm. And this
1:13:36opens the possibility that now the
1:13:38Court will take its role as
1:13:39Constitutional Court seriously, because
1:13:41now, with the action of
1:13:42unconstitutionality, for example, it
1:13:44must contrast what the norm says
1:13:46against the Constitution and, if it is
1:13:48unconstitutional, now it must expel it
1:13:49from the legal system with general
1:13:51effects. And this was super important,
1:13:55because the Court becomes an end, a
1:13:58fundamental end of the rule of law to
1:14:00ensure compliance not only with the
1:14:02guarantee of legality, but also that
1:14:05now all the principles enshrined in the
1:14:07Constitution begin to be respected;
1:14:10because, well, the market, now, let's
1:14:12remember that this is when the Free
1:14:14Trade Agreement was signed and here it
1:14:17is essential for the market to be based
1:14:20on a system of predictable rules. That
1:14:23is to say, that legal norms exist and
1:14:25that their compliance is demanded and
1:14:27can be demanded, right? That is why
1:14:31constitutional reforms began in the 90s
1:14:33to ensure that the courts were
1:14:34independent in order to build a true
1:14:36rule of law, which is an essential
1:14:38requirement for a free market. The
1:14:43explanation for this reform is given
1:14:46here by the political plurality that
1:14:48came to exist and the need to guarantee
1:14:51the rule of law as part of market
1:14:53freedom. The Federal Judicial Council
1:14:58was also created, which was an
1:14:59independent body responsible for all
1:15:01administrative matters of the Federal
1:15:04Judicial Branch, and these functions
1:15:06were removed from the Court, including
1:15:08those of oversight and discipline, so
1:15:10that the ministers could dedicate
1:15:12themselves to judicial functions. We
1:15:15now know that these activities of the
1:15:17Federal Judicial Council are divided
1:15:19into a judicial administration body and
1:15:21the Judicial Disciplinary Court. At
1:15:26this time, the cases of origin of
1:15:28constitutional controversies were also
1:15:31expanded so that conflicts of
1:15:33jurisdiction between municipal, state
1:15:35and federal powers could also be
1:15:37resolved. Well, this leads the Court to
1:15:46begin resolving conflicts with an
1:15:48interpretative interpretation of the
1:15:51Constitution. It is the first step, so
1:15:54to speak, taken to get to where we are
1:15:57today, because the Constitution is now
1:16:00seen as a binding text for all
1:16:02authorities. The view that the
1:16:05Constitution is a supreme legal norm
1:16:07and that political power is subject to
1:16:09the Constitution begins to emerge. In
1:16:12other words, it is no longer like
1:16:14before, which was the case during the
1:16:16authoritarian era, when the ideology of
1:16:18the revolution or the idolatry of the
1:16:20revolution came first in the hierarchy
1:16:22and then the Constitution, but now it
1:16:24is binding for all the others; not that
1:16:26it was already, but that the role of
1:16:28the Constitution is beginning to be
1:16:30understood, right? It begins to frame,
1:16:37so to speak, the legal system based on
1:16:39this constitutional supremacy over the
1:16:41logic that political powers must submit
1:16:45to the Constitution itself. Well, this
1:16:53first one, constitutional supremacy has
1:16:56already been established, this does not
1:16:58mean that the Constitution is a
1:17:01political norm in some sense, because,
1:17:03well, it continues to establish these
1:17:06checks and balances, dividing and
1:17:08organizing power. It establishes the
1:17:12economic regime of the State and human
1:17:14rights, which is, by its nature,
1:17:16political, but it is also legal, right?
1:17:19In other words, we have a constitution
1:17:21that is legal and political and this
1:17:23also has consequences for the Supreme
1:17:26Court because it will also have
1:17:27political effects. We have to keep in
1:17:32mind that throughout this period, like
1:17:35the 80s, there has been a broad trend
1:17:38to reform the Constitution, a
1:17:40hyper-reformism, if you will, not
1:17:42constitutional, which undermines
1:17:45constitutional supremacy and makes it
1:17:47very difficult to know with certainty
1:17:50what the Constitution is. Even those of
1:17:54us who study constitutional law find it
1:17:56difficult to know with certainty the
1:17:58reforms to the Constitution because it
1:18:00is reformed very, very frequently in
1:18:02terms of comparative law. This does not
1:18:04happen in other countries in the world
1:18:07and it is good that we have to be up to
1:18:10date. But well, in contrast to the
1:18:13United States in 1803 with the Marbury
1:18:16v. Madison case, note, I mean, the
1:18:20difference between 1803 and ours in
1:18:221994 tells you that an act of authority
1:18:30can be declared unconstitutional. For
1:18:32example, in the Marbury v. Madison case
1:18:34, the United States Supreme Court says
1:18:36that any infra-constitutional rule that
1:18:39contradicts the Constitution will be
1:18:41unconstitutional, which was created
1:18:43through a constitutional interpretation
1:18:45by Justice Marshall. Well, that's the
1:18:51first case in the United States, right?
1:18:53And in Mexico, what happens? Well, with
1:18:56the action of unconstitutionality in
1:18:581994, the Court begins to take on this
1:19:01role and this, if you look at the
1:19:03statistics, in 2008 there began to be
1:19:06judicial activism on human rights
1:19:09issues; Because, as we saw earlier, the
1:19:12Court can take on cases of importance
1:19:14and transcendence, and this judicial
1:19:17agenda begins to develop, sending
1:19:20signals that there is an interest in
1:19:22resolving and ruling on human rights
1:19:24issues, right? And what else is
1:19:27important? Well, Mexico is sentenced in
1:19:30the Radilla-Pacheco case, and here,
1:19:33what the Court does to comply is open
1:19:35the file Miscellaneous 912/AL 2010,
1:19:41which for people who are not lawyers,
1:19:44this is a case of forced disappearance,
1:19:46but in addition, the State is sentenced
1:19:49to carry out some issues that are
1:19:51exclusively the responsibility of the
1:19:54judicial branch, among which is the
1:19:56duty to carry out a conventionality
1:19:58review. And the conventionality review
1:20:03is similar to the constitutionality
1:20:04review that is carried out, but there
1:20:06must be compatibility of the acts of
1:20:07authority with the American Convention
1:20:09on Human Rights, right? What does that
1:20:11mean? In other words, we no longer have
1:20:14to ensure that the actions we carry out
1:20:16are in accordance with the Constitution
1:20:17, but also with international treaties
1:20:19on human rights to which the Mexican
1:20:21State is a party. So, what happens with
1:20:24this? The Court asks itself, what are
1:20:25we going to do? And in resolving this
1:20:29various case, what it does is establish
1:20:30the block of constitutionality; that is
1:20:32to say, that the norms of the
1:20:34Constitution and the norms of human
1:20:35rights do not have a relationship of
1:20:37hierarchy, but rather that they
1:20:38complement each other, and the binding
1:20:40nature of the judgments of the
1:20:42Inter-American Court of Human Rights is
1:20:44established in the cases to which
1:20:45Mexico has been a party. Then, pardon
1:20:50this brief introduction, now yes, to
1:20:53the presentation because the
1:20:56constitutional reform of 2011 is coming
1:20:59, right?,which is like a guiding axis
1:21:02of human rights. And here in 2011 the
1:21:07Constitution is reformed to stipulate
1:21:09that the human rights established in
1:21:11international treaties also form part
1:21:13of the Constitution as a block or
1:21:15parameter of constitutionality. For
1:21:19this, it was not necessary to have a
1:21:21reform, because the Court had already
1:21:23said so before; but well, Mexican rigor
1:21:24and formalism required that it be
1:21:26stipulated in the Constitution. But as
1:21:29we saw, it is an agenda that has been
1:21:32promoted since 2008: to take human
1:21:34rights seriously. And so the first
1:21:37article of the Constitution will be
1:21:39reformed for this...it seems to me that
1:21:43the presentation was made earlier,
1:21:45right? Still human rights, like, uh,
1:21:49thank you very much. So, I'm off topic,
1:21:56sorry. The Constitution is being
1:22:00reformed to expand this catalog of
1:22:03rights, right? And we give
1:22:06constitutional status to the human
1:22:08rights established in international
1:22:11treaties. And this serves as the
1:22:14gateway through which the State finds
1:22:16itself officially obligated to provide
1:22:18protection for human rights. And
1:22:21therefore, look, it says here, all
1:22:23authorities within the scope of their
1:22:25powers have the obligation to promote,
1:22:27respect, protect, and guarantee human
1:22:29rights. The name of the chapter is
1:22:32changed and this first chapter is named
1:22:39human rights. Earlier, like this, I
1:22:43mentioned individual guarantees and
1:22:44this is important because individual
1:22:46guarantees are the method of protecting
1:22:48human rights. In other words,
1:22:51guarantees are the mechanisms to
1:22:52enforce our rights and human rights are
1:22:54the effect of protection. What would be
1:22:57the individual guarantee par excellence
1:22:59? Well, the ampar trial, right? Two
1:23:04principles of interpretation are also
1:23:05introduced, which are the principle of
1:23:07interpretation in accordance with and
1:23:09the pro-person principle. This is going
1:23:12to modify to a great extent our
1:23:14conception of law in general, of the
1:23:16opening of the Constitution to
1:23:18international law. Well, this opening
1:23:24to international law has many
1:23:26consequences that are seen in the
1:23:28Mexican legal system as a system of
1:23:30social transformation, because it is
1:23:32understood that international law will
1:23:35give us instruments to modify social
1:23:37reality in a new democratic idea that
1:23:39brings a progressive agenda of human
1:23:42rights. For example, we can see it very
1:23:45clearly with what is the green tide,
1:23:47how it begins in Latin America and is
1:23:48seen expanding until it reaches Mexico,
1:23:50right? Therefore, it also changes the
1:23:53way of interpreting the Constitution.
1:23:57For example, we do not ask ourselves if
1:23:59the constituent in 1917 wanted, for
1:24:02example, that women should have the
1:24:04right to vote, right? That is what was
1:24:07recognized in 1953, right? We begin to
1:24:11look beyond, that is, we are no longer
1:24:13going to look to the past to guide our
1:24:15interpretation, but rather to where we
1:24:17want to go. Yes. And so, well, we
1:24:22already have that the human rights of
1:24:24international treaties have the same
1:24:27hierarchy, but well, it must be
1:24:29specified that as long as there is no
1:24:32constitutional restriction, right?
1:24:35Because if there is a constitutional
1:24:37restriction, then we have to abide by
1:24:39what the Constitution itself prevents
1:24:40according to the contradiction of
1:24:42thesis 293. And this, well, generates a
1:24:48kind of common language among the
1:24:51different countries of the region or in
1:24:54the Inter-American Court and such,
1:24:57which will now help us to use
1:25:00comparative law in our rulings. This
1:25:05common language invites us to know what
1:25:06other countries are doing when
1:25:08interpreting the law, the scope that is
1:25:10being given to it, and the reasons why
1:25:11they interpret it in that way. So, this
1:25:15dialogue between the powers is super
1:25:18important, and we must also recognize
1:25:20that in Mexico, it is different from
1:25:23how it has also developed in other
1:25:25countries, such as the United States.
1:25:30For example, in Mexico in September
1:25:322021, it was said that the
1:25:33criminalization of abortion was
1:25:35unconstitutional, and well, in contrast
1:25:37, in the United States, it was just
1:25:38said that the criminalization of
1:25:40abortion does not violate
1:25:41constitutional human rights. And well,
1:25:45the criticism of all this is judicial
1:25:49activism. It changes a legalistic
1:25:53interpretation to an interpretation
1:25:55that is in accordance with human rights
1:25:57, and this is what more or less governs
1:26:05the following constitutional reforms
1:26:07that we are going to see. Now, we do
1:26:10have the most important reform, which
1:26:13is...Oh, this seems to me that I am
1:26:15behind in presenting the reform. Well,
1:26:20we have the most important one, which
1:26:22in my opinion is the law of amparo of
1:26:25June 6, 2011, which extends the amparo
1:26:27trial to include violations of human
1:26:29rights recognized in international
1:26:31treaties. The concept of legitimate,
1:26:34individual, and collective interest is
1:26:36incorporated, and the adhesive amparo,
1:26:38the general declaration of
1:26:39unconstitutionality, and the circuit
1:26:41plenaries are instituted. And here it
1:26:46is important to note, because precisely
1:26:48, the first constitutional article once
1:26:50again provides that all persons enjoy
1:26:52the human rights recognized in the
1:26:54Constitution and in international
1:26:56treaties from which the Mexican State
1:26:59deviates; it orders the interpretation
1:27:01in accordance with the principle per
1:27:03person, according to which, among
1:27:05various possible interpretations, the
1:27:07one that grants greater protection to
1:27:09the person must be preferred. And this
1:27:13establishes that all authorities within
1:27:15the scope of their powers have the
1:27:18obligation to promote, respect, protect
1:27:20, and guarantee human rights in
1:27:22accordance with the principles of
1:27:24universality, interdependence,
1:27:26indivisibility, and progressiveness.
1:27:29Therefore, it will be the
1:27:30responsibility of the State to prevent,
1:27:32investigate, punish, and redress human
1:27:34rights violations. Well, after this, on
1:27:40April 2, 2013, the current amparo law
1:27:43was issued and on March 11, 2021, the
1:27:46system of mandatory precedents was
1:27:49established. Regional plans and
1:27:53collegiate courts of appeal were
1:27:54created and what was known as the
1:27:56eleventh era began. However, on October
1:28:0231, 2024, a second constitutional
1:28:04reform was published regarding
1:28:07constitutional supremacy, which in
1:28:09amparo somewhat closes the avenue for
1:28:12challenging reforms and additions to
1:28:15the Constitution. Now also last year,
1:28:22in 2025, the amparo law underwent, well
1:28:28, it was the subject of, or rather, two
1:28:31reforms to harmonize everything we are
1:28:36talking about, right? The method for
1:28:38selecting individuals who serve as
1:28:40judges, as well as ministers and
1:28:41justices, is being changed. It is
1:28:45stated that the amparo that is promoted
1:28:47against general norms may at no time
1:28:49have general effects, etc. So, all
1:28:51these changes are incorporated into the
1:28:53amparo law. Well, first, inclusive
1:28:56language is incorporated, replacing
1:28:59what the complainant says, the
1:29:00complainant with the person complaining
1:29:03. The supplementary nature of the
1:29:07Federal Code of Civil Procedures is
1:29:10replaced and now the National Code of
1:29:13Civil and Family Procedures is used as
1:29:16a supplementary application order. By
1:29:20the way, here in the Court, the
1:29:22conflicting criteria regarding whether
1:29:25the National Code of Civil and Family
1:29:27Procedures is already of supplementary
1:29:29application or until the Senate issues
1:29:32a declaration of entry into force is
1:29:34pending resolution. References to the
1:29:39chambers are also eliminated and the
1:29:41resolutions issued by the court by a
1:29:43majority of six votes will be mandatory
1:29:45for all jurisdictional authorities in
1:29:48the country. It is established that in
1:29:52the case of amparo trials that resolve
1:29:54the unconstitutionality of general
1:29:56rules, in no case will the rulings
1:29:57establish general effects and the same
1:29:59applies to the suspension. The concept
1:30:04of legitimate interest was also
1:30:05reformed, in order to establish that,
1:30:07in the case of legitimate interest, the
1:30:09rule, act or omission claimed must
1:30:11cause the complainant an individual or
1:30:13collective legal injury, real and
1:30:15differentiated from the rest of the
1:30:17people, in such a way that its
1:30:19annulment produces a certain benefit
1:30:21and not merely hypothetical or eventual
1:30:23. Another important change in the
1:30:27reform is that, well, the protection
1:30:29will no longer proceed from contracts
1:30:31of the judicial administration body and
1:30:34the judicial disciplinary court, which
1:30:36previously established the same, but
1:30:38contracts of the Federal Judicial
1:30:40Council. Now, regarding legitimate
1:30:45interest, I think it is important
1:30:47because there has been a lot of
1:30:49misinformation about what the scope of
1:30:51the reform is to establish that it
1:30:53should be understood as such as
1:30:55legitimate interest. And well, we are
1:31:00going to see this little by little as
1:31:02the court has resolved. If we can go to
1:31:06presentation 28, it is number 28, which
1:31:10is legitimate interest, article five.
1:31:19Okay, here the Court has already had
1:31:24the opportunity to rule on this figure
1:31:27of legitimate interest on several
1:31:29occasions and in particular, well, I
1:31:33want to talk to you about the
1:31:35contradiction of criteria 125/2025 that
1:31:37was resolved in April 2026. It is a
1:31:40contradiction of criteria regarding
1:31:42whether the principle of relativity of
1:31:45judgments is an impediment to granting
1:31:47protection for purposes that transcend
1:31:50the legal sphere of the cases. This
1:31:56contradiction of criteria derives from
1:31:58several people with the capacity to
1:32:01conceive who filed protection against
1:32:03the omission of health authorities to
1:32:05provide abortion services. And what is
1:32:10established in the judgment is that
1:32:13precisely the figure of legitimate
1:32:16interest is what will allow protection
1:32:22to be granted with effects that benefit
1:32:25more than one person. Why? Because when
1:32:28it is filed for legitimate interest,
1:32:31the rule your omission can cause
1:32:33collective harm. And in this particular
1:32:37case, it was said that the failure to
1:32:39provide health services caused a type
1:32:42of structural discrimination, so in
1:32:44those cases, the amparo rulings also
1:32:46had to be granted with structural
1:32:49effects. Similarly, the Court has just
1:32:53heard and resolved an amparo lawsuit
1:32:56filed for the legitimate interest of a
1:32:59Mayan society that, if I recall
1:33:01correctly, had been challenging the
1:33:04authorization of the farms for the sake
1:33:07of the peasants, right? And it was said
1:33:11that yes, there was this type of
1:33:13legitimate interest. Now we can move on
1:33:17to the next one, please. Well, another
1:33:29of the major changes in the reform to
1:33:32the Amparo Law are the requirements of
1:33:35article 128 to grant the suspension:
1:33:38the existence of the challenged act,
1:33:40the proven interest in the suspension,
1:33:43that the concession does not cause
1:33:45significant harm to a community, and
1:33:48that the appearance of good law is
1:33:50proven. And article 146 will require us
1:33:55to make an express and reasoned
1:33:57analysis of each of these elements.
1:34:01Likewise, the manner in which the
1:34:03suspension can be granted is also
1:34:05somewhat limited because, if we can go
1:34:07to the next one, the suspension will
1:34:13not apply in the cases established in
1:34:16article 129, because they are contrary
1:34:19to public order. And sections 14 to 17,
1:34:23well, they talk about when, for example
1:34:25, accounts are frozen because they were
1:34:27made with resources of illicit origin,
1:34:29when access to financial information is
1:34:31obstructed, when activities are carried
1:34:33out without a federal permit,
1:34:35authorization or concession. And well,
1:34:39if we can go to the next one. There is
1:34:44also a change in tax matters and it
1:34:46states that the protection will apply
1:34:48until the publication of the auction
1:34:50notice when it comes to firm credits
1:34:52and at this time the procedural
1:34:54violations are asserted. In other words
1:34:57, it does not mean that the protection
1:34:58is no longer applicable, but that you
1:34:59simply have to wait for a later
1:35:00procedural stage. The next one, please.
1:35:08Sorry, I'm going really fast, but I ran
1:35:10out of time. This third transitory
1:35:12article states that the final
1:35:14procedural stages that generate
1:35:16acquired rights are governed by the
1:35:19provisions in force at the beginning of
1:35:21the process and the actions after
1:35:23October 17, 2025 are governed by the
1:35:26new rule. And the position is that
1:35:29there is no retroactivity because it is
1:35:30a procedural law. And well, we will
1:35:34have to see what is resolved in
1:35:36accordance with these substantive
1:35:37modifications that may come to be seen.
1:35:40The next one, please. So, the
1:35:47modifications in the admissibility of
1:35:49the amparo trial are: the legitimate
1:35:51interest, which, as we saw, is
1:35:52redefined in the fifth article; the
1:35:54inadmissibility against constitutional
1:35:57reforms, which is established in
1:35:58article 61, first section; the
1:36:00inadmissibility against the acts of the
1:36:02judicial administration body and the
1:36:04disciplinary court; the special regime
1:36:06in firm tax credits, which is until the
1:36:08auction is set, and the extension to
1:36:10the claim is limited. Next, please. The
1:36:19effects establish that the judgments
1:36:21will not have general effects when they
1:36:23are general rules. The same applies to
1:36:27general rules. Suspension cannot have
1:36:29general effects. And something very
1:36:33important that I forgot to tell you,
1:36:35remember how I told you that since the
1:36:37first injunction was granted, the
1:36:39district judge was concerned about how
1:36:41to comply with his sentence, and it
1:36:43speaks to the dignity of the court. Now
1:36:47, Article 192 allows for a competency
1:36:50test prior to requiring compliance to
1:36:52see who is the person who can comply
1:36:55with it. And at the same time, to
1:36:58notify the hierarchical superior, well,
1:37:00to facilitate compliance with
1:37:02injunction sentences, because well, an
1:37:04injunction sentence that is not
1:37:06complied with becomes a paper
1:37:08injunction. Therefore, the judge's
1:37:11powers are being expanded, so that they
1:37:13may properly ensure the due compliance
1:37:15with the final sentence. And well, this
1:37:20is where I have the reforms to the
1:37:27injunction law. I don't know if you
1:37:29want to ask any questions.
1:37:32Thank you very much, teacher. Yes, we
1:37:34have actually received many questions.
1:37:37This class has generated a lot of
1:37:39interest. In that case, well, I think
1:37:42we can allow ourselves a few minutes in
1:37:45order to start formulating it. This
1:37:49statement you made about when certain
1:37:52acts of individuals can be considered
1:37:55acts of authority for amparo
1:37:57proceedings generated a lot of interest
1:37:59. So, several people asked if you could
1:38:04give some examples, right?, of when
1:38:08precisely these acts of individuals can
1:38:10be considered to be exercising acts of
1:38:12authorities. Yes, what the Court's
1:38:17jurisprudence tells us is that this
1:38:20power must derive from a general rule,
1:38:23for example, when the State can grant a
1:38:26concession to provide a public service.
1:38:29I don't know. There are states in which
1:38:32those in charge of processing, I don't
1:38:34know, the water that they provide us
1:38:36come from private companies; that could
1:38:38be an example, or the acts that
1:38:40autonomous universities could carry out
1:38:42, for example, if they do not allow
1:38:44someone to enroll due to some issue of
1:38:46discrimination. I can also think of
1:38:50various acts that private hospitals
1:38:52could carry out, for example, not
1:38:54allowing admission. Hm. Banking
1:38:59institutions, sometimes.
1:39:03Thank you very much, teacher. Before
1:39:05asking another question, I would also
1:39:08like to clarify for the people who are
1:39:10commenting here on this as questions
1:39:12whether Professor Alejandra's
1:39:16presentation will be shared with them
1:39:17on Moodle at the end of the session.
1:39:21She has already sent it to us so that
1:39:23you may study in advance of the
1:39:25evaluation, and for those of you who
1:39:27were experiencing some trouble with
1:39:29logging into the session, please do not
1:39:32worry about that either. You will also
1:39:36be able to watch the session later or,
1:39:39if you are already on the platform,
1:39:41your attendance is automatically
1:39:44recorded when you watch the session on
1:39:46the Moodle platform. So, there is
1:39:49nothing else you need to do in case
1:39:51that was causing you any concerns,
1:39:52because I see those comments in several
1:39:54questions. Therefore, I wanted to
1:39:56clarify it from this moment on. So, to
1:39:58clarify this right now, and also to
1:40:00remind you that since it is very
1:40:01important for you to complete this
1:40:03course so that you can obtain the
1:40:05certificate, if you were not able to
1:40:06connect today, you have up to 7
1:40:08calendar days to watch the session and
1:40:10prove your attendance. Okay, another
1:40:12question we are asked is whether the
1:40:15appeal is only filed before federal
1:40:17authorities.
1:40:22Here we have to make a distinction. If
1:40:25the challenged act comes from any
1:40:27authority that is not jurisdictional,
1:40:29as a general rule it will be filed
1:40:31before the district court. It will only
1:40:36be filed before the responsible
1:40:37authority when the appeal is filed
1:40:38against a final judgment or is made in
1:40:40the form of a direct appeal. A direct
1:40:43appeal is filed through the responsible
1:40:46authority that issued the judgment, but
1:40:48in all other cases it must be filed
1:40:50precisely before the district court
1:40:52where the challenged act is going to be
1:40:55executed or where it should be executed
1:40:57.
1:41:00Perfect. Thank you very much, teacher.
1:41:03We also have questions or doubts. I
1:41:07also mean to specify. This is an
1:41:09introductory session, right? There will
1:41:11be more specific sessions precisely on
1:41:14the General Declaration of
1:41:15Unconstitutionality, on topics of
1:41:17legitimate interest. So, don't worry
1:41:20about direct appeal. Maybe here in this
1:41:23first session there is a lot of
1:41:24information, don't worry either. Well,
1:41:28they asked us if you could tell us very
1:41:30quickly when the General Decree of
1:41:32Unconstitutionality is required and if
1:41:35it generates jurisprudence. Thank you
1:41:39very much. Yes, I know that was too
1:41:41much information. I apologize, but it
1:41:45was very important to me that, in this,
1:41:47as your first session, you see the
1:41:49historical evolution of the amparo
1:41:51trial: how it began, how the Federal
1:41:54Constitution migrated, how it even
1:41:56changed the composition of the Court,
1:41:58the competitive examinations that were
1:42:01free, internal, yes, the designations
1:42:03of district judges, which were made
1:42:05directly by the Supreme Court of
1:42:07Justice of the Nation, and how the
1:42:09amparo trial began, how it was a trial
1:42:13with a bit of legality until the action
1:42:16of unconstitutionality was created, how
1:42:18this vision of human rights began in
1:42:202008, the reform, so that you had an
1:42:22overview, right? And I also began by
1:42:25telling them how the principle of
1:42:27relativity of judgments was included
1:42:29since Article 25 of the reform act was
1:42:35created by Mariano Otero, which is
1:42:36known as the Otero formula, and that
1:42:39said principle of relativity has been
1:42:41modified, right? And one of the main
1:42:43things that justifies the modification
1:42:46of the principle of relativity of
1:42:48judgments is precisely when the
1:42:49protection is requested for a
1:42:51legitimate interest. And we also saw
1:42:55that the Constitution now makes it
1:42:57impossible to grant protection with
1:43:00general effects when a general rule is
1:43:04requested. And now this means that
1:43:07since protection with general effects
1:43:09can no longer be granted against
1:43:11general rules, how redundant, the
1:43:14protection ruling will always be there,
1:43:18sorry, the unconstitutional law or the
1:43:20unconstitutional provision will always
1:43:22be there, right? But what is it that is
1:43:24being sought? That is to say, the
1:43:27decision of a single judge does not
1:43:29cause the legal system to reject a
1:43:32provision that is not yet mandatory,
1:43:34that is to say, there is no mandatory
1:43:37provision regarding unconstitutionality
1:43:40. That is why the Constitution does
1:43:43leave the door open for a general
1:43:44declaration of unconstitutionality. Now
1:43:47, when can a general declaration of
1:43:48unconstitutionality be made? When there
1:43:51is already case law regarding the
1:43:53unconstitutionality of the norm. And so
1:43:56, here we must turn our attention to
1:43:58those who can create case law. Sorry,
1:44:00yes. I don't remember if I mentioned it
1:44:03, but it is the Circuit Collegiate
1:44:05Courts, when they resolve five matters
1:44:07in the same direction, or the Supreme
1:44:10Court of Justice of the Nation, when it
1:44:12declares the unconstitutionality of a
1:44:14norm by a majority of six votes, since
1:44:20it is case law and mandatory for all
1:44:21judges in the country or state of the
1:44:23locality, that a certain provision is
1:44:25unconstitutional. Okay, now it's sent
1:44:28to the Supreme Court to issue a general
1:44:30declaration of unconstitutionality. And
1:44:33here it's very important to mention
1:44:35that it doesn't proceed automatically,
1:44:37but rather the legislative authorities
1:44:39are given notice to correct the
1:44:41unconstitutionality defect and if they
1:44:43don't; they're given a period of 90
1:44:45days and, if they don't do it, the
1:44:47unconstitutionality of the norm is
1:44:48declared and now it's expelled from the
1:44:50legal system. As you can see, it's not
1:44:54that the amparo would no longer be an
1:44:56effective remedy, because it would make
1:44:57it necessary for all people to file an
1:44:59amparo lawsuit against, I don't know, a
1:45:01certain article that is considered
1:45:03unconstitutional, right? And that's why
1:45:07I also think the political role played
1:45:09by the Supreme Court is very important,
1:45:11because many times when it takes on
1:45:13cases, for example, when the original
1:45:15jurisdiction is resumed, I don't know,
1:45:18I can think of some local legislation,
1:45:20if unconstitutionality has already been
1:45:22declared by a majority of six votes, it
1:45:24proceeds to process a general
1:45:26declaration of unconstitutionality, for
1:45:28which only one case was needed. So,
1:45:32that's why the Court seeks to bring
1:45:34cases that have human rights violations
1:45:36to ensure, to the extent possible, that
1:45:38the Constitution is complied with and
1:45:40that endless injunctions do not have to
1:45:42be filed to have the legal norm
1:45:44expelled. In other words, it no longer
1:45:46depends, so to speak, on the will of
1:45:48the legislator, but the Supreme Court
1:45:49itself can do it. Unlike if the
1:45:53collegiate circuit courts do it, well,
1:45:55it's more complicated because we need
1:45:57the same court to hear five cases of
1:45:59the same nature and for them to resolve
1:46:01in the same way. And that's a bit more
1:46:04complicated, right? Especially, for
1:46:07example, on issues of, let me give you
1:46:09an example, the issue of abortion,
1:46:10right? There is already Supreme Court
1:46:13case law stating that the crime of
1:46:15abortion is unconstitutional. So, in
1:46:19reality, the district judge will most
1:46:21likely grant the injunction and then
1:46:23that matter will most likely not reach
1:46:25the collegiate court to create case law
1:46:27and at the same time issue a general
1:46:29declaration of unconstitutionality. So,
1:46:33the role that the Supreme Court has
1:46:35played in this new integration of
1:46:36attracting these types of issues is
1:46:38important here. Why? Because, as I told
1:46:42you, the unconstitutionality was
1:46:43declared, for example, I remember the
1:46:45Criminal Code of Tamaulipas and after
1:46:47resolving only one issue, now they
1:46:49proceed to issue a general declaration
1:46:51of unconstitutionality. I don't know if
1:46:53this resolved the question.
1:46:56I think it was a very, very complete
1:46:58answer, teacher. Okay, so anyway, we'll
1:47:00have a more specific session, but I
1:47:02think it's pretty clear for the
1:47:03purposes of this session. We have
1:47:08another question, which is, what would
1:47:10you consider to be the essential
1:47:12elements that a person must identify to
1:47:14determine whether an act of authority
1:47:15can be challenged through an amparo
1:47:17lawsuit? Okay? Well, here it's
1:47:23important to also establish for people
1:47:26who are not lawyers that, as I did with
1:47:28the amparo law, you have to have an
1:47:30interest that is different from the
1:47:32rest of the people in order to file an
1:47:35amparo lawsuit. In other words, an
1:47:37amparo lawsuit does not allow you to go
1:47:39for a simple interest. I'll give you an
1:47:42example. Let's suppose that in Cancun
1:47:44they have just authorized the
1:47:46construction of a hotel on the beach
1:47:51and that, in addition, they are going
1:47:53to tear down or destroy cenotes, let's
1:47:56say. In other words, an amparo lawsuit
1:47:59because it affects the right to the
1:48:00environment. As they told you at the
1:48:03beginning of the session, I am from
1:48:05Chihuahua, Chihuahua, and I currently
1:48:07live in Mexico City. Even though I live
1:48:10on the beach, I would not have an
1:48:11interest in filing an amparo lawsuit.
1:48:14Why? Because I am not part of that
1:48:17underlying environment. Who could file
1:48:19an amparo lawsuit? For example, people
1:48:21who are in Cancun. Why? Because they
1:48:24would have a different impact on their
1:48:27legal sphere. That is more or less what
1:48:30is known as legitimate interest or
1:48:33legal interest, which is when an act of
1:48:35authority directly affects you, your
1:48:37person, your freedom, your assets, your
1:48:40health, etc., right? In any aspect of
1:48:43your person. So, those would be the
1:48:45cases in which they could file an
1:48:47amparo lawsuit.
1:48:49Thank you very much, teacher. And they
1:48:52also asked us, I spoke very briefly
1:48:54about the issue of the possible
1:48:56installation of two sections. So, what
1:49:00do these sections mean and what
1:49:04possible implications could they have?
1:49:09Well, it will be very interesting to
1:49:11see how the Supreme Court implements
1:49:13them, because I tell you, right now
1:49:15they are not implemented yet and we
1:49:17have to keep in mind that the Amparo
1:49:19Law and the Constitution establish that
1:49:21in order for the Court to establish
1:49:23this jurisprudence we need a majority
1:49:25of six votes. So, this leads me to
1:49:28think, I mean, I don't know how it will
1:49:31be because they have not been
1:49:33implemented, that, well, the sections
1:49:35would actually be like auxiliaries in
1:49:38procedural matters or something like
1:49:40that, because, well, they would not
1:49:42have, so to speak, the power to create
1:49:44jurisprudence if they do not have these
1:49:47six members, right? Six votes to be
1:49:50able to generate jurisprudence, which
1:49:51is the opposite of what happened, for
1:49:53example, with the two chambers, where
1:49:55before a majority of four votes in the
1:49:56chambers was enough, but now it is not.
1:49:59Now only the plenary can generate
1:50:00jurisprudence with a majority of six
1:50:02votes. So, we will have to see and stay
1:50:04tuned.
1:50:06Perfect, thank you very much. And we
1:50:10still have a few minutes to ask some
1:50:12other questions. Another person asks us
1:50:16, who can file an indirect amparo? Can
1:50:20I file an amparo claim without having
1:50:22to have a legal representative?
1:50:25Yes. Yes. In fact, it is preferable to
1:50:29file it in your own right, that is, you
1:50:31file it when it affects you, but there
1:50:34are some cases in which the amparo law
1:50:36allows someone else to file it. For
1:50:40example, in cases that involve the
1:50:41forced disappearance of people, any
1:50:43individual is permitted to file a
1:50:45formal amparo claim. You can also file
1:50:49it through your attorney, through
1:50:51whoever has the authority to do so,
1:50:52right? And in very specific cases, for
1:50:56example, if a person is deprived of
1:50:58liberty, you could do it through third
1:51:00parties, but it is advisable that it be
1:51:03us. If your lawyer files the claim for
1:51:06you and signs it, then it does not have
1:51:07to be you.
1:51:10Perfect. Very good. And especially for
1:51:13those people who are not lawyers and
1:51:15who are with us today, I think this
1:51:17information is very relevant. Yes.
1:51:20And also, sorry, this one, to elaborate
1:51:23a little more, we also have to keep in
1:51:25mind that the reforms to the Amparo Law
1:51:28, I don't feel like it's the part that
1:51:31I skipped, but it's very important that
1:51:33it establishes the obligation of the
1:51:36responsible authorities to create a
1:51:38user in order to carry out the trial
1:51:40online. Let's see, and it's not
1:51:43mandatory that the trial be carried out
1:51:45online, it's like at the complainant's
1:51:49choice. So, now also if you have an
1:51:52electronic signature, you can file your
1:51:54amparo claim digitally and not have to
1:51:57go to the district court. I consider
1:52:01that to be a great advantage, but it's
1:52:03also worth mentioning that it's not
1:52:05mandatory, but rather at the person's
1:52:07choice. José. Perfect. Thank you very
1:52:12much, sir. They also ask if you could
1:52:18please explain once more, in a very
1:52:20quick way, how a particular matter is
1:52:23able to reach the Supreme Court of
1:52:25justice.
1:52:27Okay. Oh, well, there are many, but
1:52:30let's see, which ones will the Supreme
1:52:32Court always hear? What are actions of
1:52:34unconstitutionality and constitutional
1:52:37controversies? There is no other body
1:52:39empowered to resolve these other than
1:52:41the Court, working in plenary session.
1:52:43That is also very important. Now, an
1:52:46action of unconstitutionality cannot be
1:52:48brought by just anyone; in other words,
1:52:50we could not bring it; those who bring
1:52:52it are precisely political actors. For
1:52:55example, it requires 33%of Congress or
1:53:00a political party, or it can be brought
1:53:03by the National Human Rights Commission
1:53:05, the Attorney General's Office, and so
1:53:07on, these are very specific issues. So,
1:53:11what happens with an action of
1:53:12unconstitutionality? The Court will see
1:53:15if the law being challenged is in
1:53:17accordance with the Constitution, and
1:53:19if it is not and it has a majority of
1:53:21six votes, the invalidity of the norm
1:53:23is declared and the legal system is
1:53:25expelled with general effects, so to
1:53:27speak. The same applies to the
1:53:29constitutional controversy and the
1:53:31Court's. And those are the two, so to
1:53:34speak, the two constitutional processes
1:53:36that the court will review, no matter
1:53:38what. Now, do you remember when we
1:53:41talked about the direct amparo, which
1:53:43was the one that proceeded against
1:53:45final judgments? As a general rule,
1:53:49direct amparo proceedings are heard by
1:53:52the circuit collegiate courts, and when
1:53:54there is a problem of constitutionality
1:53:57, the door can be opened for a direct
1:53:59amparo review. As I like it, or as I
1:54:04learned when I was in college, the
1:54:06system is designed so that the court is
1:54:09the final interpreter of the
1:54:11Constitution. Do you understand? In
1:54:14other words, the Supreme Court of
1:54:16Justice of the Nation is the last
1:54:17instance to rule on the
1:54:18constitutionality of a rule. What does
1:54:21that mean? In direct amparo proceedings
1:54:23, we are going to open an appeal so
1:54:25that the constitutionality of a rule
1:54:27can be analyzed or if the
1:54:28interpretation of a human right made by
1:54:30the collegiate court was correct. So,
1:54:33direct amparo proceedings. One of the
1:54:37reforms that has also been made to the
1:54:39amparo law is that no appeal can be
1:54:41filed against the dismissal of direct
1:54:43amparo proceedings, and in reality,
1:54:45very few cases are admitted, right?
1:54:49Also, if you are litigants and want the
1:54:51court to take action, then plan ahead
1:54:53if you are going to assert any
1:54:55constitutionality issues. Also, as we
1:54:58were saying, it will hear appeals for
1:55:01review when the constitutionality of a
1:55:03federal regulation is challenged, or
1:55:05the direct interpretation of a human
1:55:07right regarding which the court has not
1:55:10ruled. Okay? If there is case law, the
1:55:12Circuit Court must resolve it. If there
1:55:14is not, it must be sent to the Supreme
1:55:16Court. Otherwise, the Court, as I said,
1:55:19is a political entity that will also
1:55:21have a judicial agenda. For example,
1:55:24right now with the chief justice, it is
1:55:27very clear that there have not been
1:55:29many issues regarding the
1:55:30constitutional article, right?,which
1:55:33was recently reformed. So, of course
1:55:40the Court is interested in resolving
1:55:42issues involving the rights of
1:55:44indigenous and Afro-Mexican peoples and
1:55:47communities to establish what the scope
1:55:50of action of the judicial bodies should
1:55:52be. So, by attracting these matters,
1:55:56the Court will create jurisprudence on
1:55:58these collective rights. So, through
1:56:03the power of attraction and the
1:56:05resumption of original jurisdiction, we
1:56:07also saw that the Court will decide on
1:56:09the contradiction of criteria between
1:56:12regional plenary sessions or a
1:56:14collegiate court and a regional plenary
1:56:16session and even between the former
1:56:18chambers of the Supreme Court. Hm. Also
1:56:23, something very important and very
1:56:25interesting that the Court knows, and
1:56:27that will be submitted to the plenary
1:56:29session for consideration soon, is that
1:56:31the Court has the power to decide how
1:56:33it will comply when there is a
1:56:35conviction against the Mexican State
1:56:37for a judgment issued by the
1:56:39Inter-American Court of Human Rights,
1:56:41but only when it imposes specific
1:56:42obligations on the Judicial Branch of
1:56:45the Federation. These are some examples
1:56:48of the cases that the Court may hear
1:56:50and all matters. Call them amparo in
1:56:53review, direct amparo, ordinary federal
1:56:55trials. The Court can hear them through
1:56:57the exercise of the Power of Attraction
1:56:59.
1:57:01Thank you very much, teacher. This has
1:57:04undoubtedly been an excellent
1:57:06presentation, very broad, but I also
1:57:07believe that it sets the foundations
1:57:09very well for everything we will see
1:57:11throughout the sessions. So, students,
1:57:15do not worry, as all of this content is
1:57:17developed in a specific way throughout
1:57:19the sessions that await us over the
1:57:21course of this diploma program. So, we
1:57:24deeply appreciate your time and
1:57:26dedication to preparing this session.
1:57:30To those who joined us, we remind you
1:57:32that in addition to attending the
1:57:34sessions, the diploma course includes 2
1:57:36hours of study and independent work per
1:57:38session that includes reading reference
1:57:40sources available on the platform. We
1:57:44also remind you that those who were
1:57:45unable to connect from the beginning or
1:57:48who had any problems during today's
1:57:49session can consult the session on the
1:57:52Moodle platform without any problem.
1:57:55You have up to 7 calendar days to have
1:57:58your attendance counted as registered
1:58:00on the same platform. There, you will
1:58:03be able to see when the attendance has
1:58:06been correctly marked. It says
1:58:08registered attendance with a green
1:58:09check mark. Well, all that remains for
1:58:13me to do is thank you for today,
1:58:15welcome you again, and thank you for
1:58:17joining us for this first session. We
1:58:20will meet again next Wednesday,
1:58:22September 2, 2026, to take up the next
1:58:24session, which is session two, entitled
1:58:27Constitutionality Block, Constitutional
1:58:29Regularity Parameter, and
1:58:31Conventionality Control. See you later.
1:58:35Thank you.
1:58:36See you later.
1:58:38Thank you very much, teacher. See you
1:58:40later.

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of 🟣 Diplomado en Juicio de Amparo by Casas de los Saberes Jurídicos, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 15,705 words across 2,495 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.