Judicial Reform as Insurance Policy: Mexico in the 1990s

Mexico's CFJ is a seven-member body composed of the country's chief justice, one judge, two district magistrates, two members chosen by the Senate, and one member appointed by the president. They serve fouryear, nonrenewable terms. The CFJ is vested with key responsibilities over judicial careers, including the appointment, promotion, and discipline of all judges below the supreme court level. The CFJ's powers also include the establishment of territorial divisions and the number of circuits; as a result, the CFJ determines the total number of judges. Furthermore, the council is charged with the professionalization of the national judiciary and the establishment of prerequisites for judicial careers (university curriculum and standards for advancement based on experience and merit evaluations). Responsibility for preparing the judicial branch's budget was also transferred from the Supreme Court to the council.6 The CFJ submits its budget to the president, who then refers it to Congress as part of the national budget proposal. While the Supreme Court does retain some administrative functions, the CFJ is now the main body charged with judicial administration, and the court is primarily responsible for issuing rulings to resolve disputes and to determine the constitutionality of laws.7

The most significant changes brought about by Mexico's 1994 judicial reform bill involve the political understanding surrounding the Supreme Court's role as a check on the separation of powers. This change is embodied in the court's right to resolve "constitutional controversies" and to determine the "unconstitutionality of laws."** Supreme Court decisions in these two areas have the potential to have "general effects"; in other words, they may declare government acts (in the first instance) or laws (in the second) as null and void. Before the reform, the Mexican legal system considered only cases of amparo, or protection of individual guarantees. Under ampam, a court's ruling has effect only for the individual bringing the case, not for the entire population. According to Chief Justice Juventino Castro y Castro, "There is no such thing as awpam against unconstitutional laws; there is only ampam against the application of such laws to a specific case which has been raised by an individual who has been diligent enough to request it from the Federal Judiciary" (Quoted in Estrada Samano 1995, 44). Thus, by establishing the general effects of Supreme Court decisions in cases involving "constitutional controversies" or "unconstitutionality of laws," Mexico's 1994 judicial reform granted the Supreme Court the right to act as a constitutional court capable of controlling the constitutionality of government actions and laws.

"Constitutional controversies" refers to the Supreme Court's right to resolve conflicts between public entities in which one entity alleges the other's infringement on a mutual jurisdiction. These conflicts include disputes between the president and Congress, between the federal government and states or cities, between two states, between political organs within states, and between states and cities. Any of these entities may petition the court to hear its case. Although the Supreme Court did previously enjoy the ability to decide such controversies, its decisions did not have any affect beyond the immediate parties involved. Now, the Supreme Court may void an act or law if it is found to violate the jurisdiction of another official public entity.