Thursday, 22 February 2024
WorldTEPJF orders Congress to regulate gender parity for the 2030 presidential election

TEPJF orders Congress to regulate gender parity for the 2030 presidential election

MEXICO CITY (apro).- The Electoral Tribunal of the Judicial Power of the Federation (TEPJF) ordered the Congress of the Union to regulate gender parity in the presidential election, however, the legislative changes will be applied until 2030, when it is carried out the next renewal of the federal Executive.

In an ordinary session of the Superior Chamber of the TEPJF, Judge Felipe Fuentes Barrera proposed to declare non-existent the omissions of the Congress of the Union in not legislating on this issue and of the National Electoral Institute (INE) in not issuing guidelines to regulate the joint election, because There is no provision that forces them to do so.

“From the review of the constitutional and conventional regulations, the omission attributed to the Congress of the Union is not proven, especially since in the constitutional reform called ‘total parity’, the duty to legislate on that exact issue was not assigned,” indicates the Fuentes Barrera project.

By a majority of four votes, the Superior Chamber rejected the proposal and determined that the omissions that were claimed by a citizen do exist and that, therefore, it is necessary to establish rules that make effective the principle of parity in the nomination of candidates for the Presidency. of the Republic.

During the discussion, the magistrates pointed out that the Constitution establishes in articles 35 and 41 that the principle of parity must be applied to all positions, including the presidential one.

For this reason, they considered that Congress was omitted by not legislating to adapt reality to what the Magna Carta establishes.

The magistrates added that, if Congress does not comply with this constitutional mandate, the General Council of the INE has the power to regulate parity in the presidential election, based on the same articles mentioned above.

Due to the above, the TEPJF approved to order the Congress of the Union to regulate parity between men and women, in the presidential elections, however, during the session the magistrates did not specify what period the legislators will have to comply with the sentence, since this will be established once the ruling is completely drafted and approved by the Superior Chamber.

If Congress legislates, the parity rules it establishes will not apply to the election next June in which two women are emerging to compete for the Presidency of the Republic.

Consequently, they will apply for the 2030 election, and in the event that Congress continues without legislating, it will be up to the INE to issue guidelines for said election.

The presiding magistrate Mónica Soto proposed expediting this parity in the presidential chair by forcing the INE to regulate before political parties register their candidates, which will occur in three weeks.

However, the Constitution prohibits making legal changes in electoral matters while the election process is in progress since these must be made 90 days before the election begins. Therefore, Soto’s proposal was not supported.

The arguments

After listening to the presentation of the magistrate Felipe Fuentes, his colleagues Janine Otálora, Reyes Rodríguez Mondragón, Felipe de la Mata and the presiding magistrate Mónica Soto highlighted that the proposal contravenes the right of women to access all public positions.

Judge Janine Otálora pointed out that it is a human right of women to be voted in all positions, including that of president of the country and that to consider the opposite would be to go against the Constitution.

“Nor do I support the statement that parity in the Federal Executive Branch is guaranteed with the integration of the State Cabinet, since this, in my opinion, leads us to confuse the ownership of a power with the way in which it organizes the office.” of the issues,” he added.

Reyes Rodríguez Mondragón recalled that the Superior Chamber has previously determined legislative omissions despite the fact that the Constitution does not clearly and directly mandate the obligation to regulate.

“If we agree that this right exists, then, we must recognize that there is a correlative express mandate to regulate it, which leads to the conclusion that the Congress of the Union has not complied with its obligation to legislate on the matter, therefore Therefore, there is an omission,” he explained.

Felipe de la Mata Pizaña commented on the modalities that the Congress of the Union can consider in its legislation.

“There are possibilities, both alternative parity at the level of the total candidacy, but also at the partisan level, at the level of the party candidacy; or it can be done, precisely, through percentages,” he concluded.

Popular content

Latest article

More article