Translated by Noah Burton
The new Law of Protection [amparo, which acts like an injunction or an appeal in US law] requires that sessions of the multi-judge tribunals that hear constitutional guarantees lawsuits be made open to the public, but the new regulation has provoked concern on the part of judges and annoyance among trial lawyers.
On one side, judges of the Federal Judiciary are concerned that the courtrooms are too small to accommodate more than 5 people at a time without overflowing.
Some lawyers, however, have complained that the majority of judges of the multi-judge tribunals put forth “objections” as soon as they enter the courtroom, citing lack of space.
Roberto Flores Meza and Rogelio Garza, specialists in constitutional and protection law, told La Jornada that the Council of the Federal Jucidicary (CJF) limited public audiences to those cases that went to court on or after April 3, when the new law took effect.
Judges interviewed by La Jornada asked that the Judiciary build new courtrooms to accommodate the public.
Discussing another facet of judicial reform, Jorge Manrique, president of the Mexico City College of Law, estimated that implementing oral trials in the Distrito Federal court system would cost less than 3 million pesos [US$245,322], not the 10 billion pesos [US$817,742,000] that Federal District head of government Miguel Ángel Macera has repeated at various public forums on the subject.
Discussing the matter while being recognized for winning first place honors in the National Oral Trial Competition, Manrique said that “the savings will be possible with the support of civil organizations and law schools.”
Manrique pointed out that training in oral trials makes up 80 percent of expenditures for the implementation of the new prosecutorial system in places like the Federal District.
Regarding the debate over the lack of courtrooms suitable for public audiences, it is important to note that the new law does set the stage for courtrooms that are open to the public, but only in cases that are set in motion on or after the date of the implementation of the law.
One of the judges interviewed explained that in his court they settle 20 or more cases every week, and that not all of those cases are argued.
The new Law of Protection [amparo, which acts like an injunction or an appeal in US law] requires that sessions of the multi-judge tribunals that hear constitutional guarantees lawsuits be made open to the public, but the new regulation has provoked concern on the part of judges and annoyance among trial lawyers.
On one side, judges of the Federal Judiciary are concerned that the courtrooms are too small to accommodate more than 5 people at a time without overflowing.
Some lawyers, however, have complained that the majority of judges of the multi-judge tribunals put forth “objections” as soon as they enter the courtroom, citing lack of space.
Roberto Flores Meza and Rogelio Garza, specialists in constitutional and protection law, told La Jornada that the Council of the Federal Jucidicary (CJF) limited public audiences to those cases that went to court on or after April 3, when the new law took effect.
Judges interviewed by La Jornada asked that the Judiciary build new courtrooms to accommodate the public.
Discussing another facet of judicial reform, Jorge Manrique, president of the Mexico City College of Law, estimated that implementing oral trials in the Distrito Federal court system would cost less than 3 million pesos [US$245,322], not the 10 billion pesos [US$817,742,000] that Federal District head of government Miguel Ángel Macera has repeated at various public forums on the subject.
Discussing the matter while being recognized for winning first place honors in the National Oral Trial Competition, Manrique said that “the savings will be possible with the support of civil organizations and law schools.”
Manrique pointed out that training in oral trials makes up 80 percent of expenditures for the implementation of the new prosecutorial system in places like the Federal District.
Regarding the debate over the lack of courtrooms suitable for public audiences, it is important to note that the new law does set the stage for courtrooms that are open to the public, but only in cases that are set in motion on or after the date of the implementation of the law.
On April 8, the Judiciary released an official statement declaring that
“only sessions of the multi-judge panels under the jurisdiction of the new Law of Protection of April 2, 2013 will be open to the public, and not those that correspond to cases that should continue to be tried under the now-revoked Law of Protection of January 10, 1936 until their resolution.”The magistrates of the multi-judge panels consulted by La Jornada said that this statement by the Judiciary makes compliance with the new law even more problematic, as far as the public nature of the trials goes.
One of the judges interviewed explained that in his court they settle 20 or more cases every week, and that not all of those cases are argued.
“It would be pointless to have litigants waiting all morning just to allow them in the courtroom for two minutes to tell them that their case wasn’t argued.”