I already said it in my report on Tuesday: whatever happens, we are already armored against treason. I’ll explain it again tomorrow.
– Andrés Manuel (@lopezobrador_)
April 18, 2022
Today, February 18, the spotlight will remain on the SCJN. A group of senators, led by Emilio Álvarez Icaza, submitted an urgent document to the SCJN so that the ‘contradictions’ recorded during last week’s vote are resolved and they affirm that eight ministers, not 7, spoke out for the invalidity of articles three, section XIV and 26 of the Electricity Industry Law (LIE) and They accuse that the minister president, Arturo Zaldívar, “directed” the vote to dismiss the matter.
In other words, the senators maintain that in the Court there was a majority that determined the unconstitutionality of the LIE and, therefore, the supposed victory in the electricity market of Andrés Manuel López Obrador, in reality, was a defeat.
“There is still no publication of the sentence, nor of a breakdown of the results that were taken in the vote of the Court from April 5 to 7,” says Senator Emilio Álvarez. “We want to insist that there was a wrong account and we must recover the meaning of the vote, since there is no consummated legal act.”
Thus, the battle is still alive and today there will be a new chapter around it, since the ministers are expected to rule on the matter.
Regardless of what happens today, there are two constitutional controversies pending resolution in the Court; The speaker is Minister Loretta Ortiz, the same one who was a speaker in the case of unconstitutionality of the LIE.
The first of them, to be discussed this April 19, was presented by the Federal Economic Competition Commission (Cofece) against the LIE arguing that it affected free competition and Cofece’s autonomy. The second constitutional controversy was filed by the state of Colima, alleging invasion of concurrent powers in environmental matters; It is expected that this will also be discussed this coming Tuesday.
What fate is expected for these two constitutional controversies? The same one that had the action of unconstitutionality presented by 48 senators. “I understand that the two projects come against the controversial petitions and then it is assumed that there will be a vote very similar to the one that already took place with the unconstitutionality action,” says Senator Santiago Creel.
However, the battle will continue in other arenas. The resolutions of the Court will not settle the legal discussion in any way, in such a way that the door is open for whoever considers their rights aggrieved to file an amparo.
In the national judicial route there are still chapters to come against the LIE. So, the victory that the president presumes so much, is actually a mirage, since there will be a significant number of suspensions in amparo matters, which will mean that the reforms to the LIE and its effects are suspended and will be for many months. plus.
“The majority of the ministers voted against the heart of the reform and believed that it was unconstitutional. What does that mean? That the judges will be able to decide freely in each of the cases and it is most likely that a District Judge will see how the majority of the ministers voted to inspire their resolutions”, assures Santiago Creel.
Simultaneously, the fight with an international dimension also appears. The controversies will come through regional mechanisms within the framework of the T-MEC and global ones through the WTO. “We could be facing an international Fobaproa, through which US or transnational companies that feel their rights have been violated can go to court and that could lead us to cover the costs,” warns Emilio Álvarez Icaza.
Under these inertias, the destiny of the electrical reform is important, without a doubt, but what is happening in the Court is even more important; At the close of this story, the setback for the president in Congress was prefigured, but also that today, during his morning conference, Andrés Manuel López Obrador retakes his “victory” in Court with the LIE; therefore, the fight will continue to be fought in the Judiciary.