MEXICO: An Introduction to Dispute Resolution: Civil & Commercial Litigation

Introduction

On 15 September 2024, the Decree Amending, Adding, and Repealing Various Provisions of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States Regarding the Reform of the Judiciary (the “Judicial Reform”) was published. This reform marks one of the most significant changes to Mexico‘s judicial framework since the enactment of the 1917 Constitution and the introduction of the 1994 reforms during President Zedillo’s administration. While its enactment is a monumental step, understanding its full implications requires a review of the broader context. The reform is part of a long-standing effort to address systemic inefficiencies and improve the overall administration of justice in Mexico.

Background

Efforts to reform the judiciary in Mexico have been ongoing for decades. The most recent wave began in 2015 when a working group was established, bringing together over 200 individuals from 26 institutions. This diverse coalition included researchers, civil society representatives, academics, lawyers, and officials from all three branches of government. Their primary objective was to diagnose the judiciary’s challenges and propose viable solutions.

The findings of this initiative were published in the report Dialogues for Everyday Justice: Joint Diagnoses and Solutions. This document identified several critical issues within Mexico’s civil and commercial justice systems:

• Inconsistent Legislation: Mexico’s system grants each state the authority to legislate its Civil Procedure Code, resulting in a patchwork of regulations. For example, requirements for filing lawsuits vary significantly between states. This inconsistency complicates the judiciary’s efforts to promote uniform interpretation and application of the law.
• Slow and Costly Justice: Procedural formalities have long been a hallmark of Mexico’s judicial process, often leading to protracted and expensive litigation. The costs associated with such delays can deter individuals and businesses from pursuing legal remedies.
• Challenges in Legal Practice: Many judges, particularly those operating at the state level, face difficulties related to inadequate training, lack of specialisation, and overwhelming caseloads. Furthermore, the legal profession in Mexico lacks comprehensive regulation, and there is no centralised authority overseeing the conduct and standards of legal practitioners.

In response to these challenges, Mexico has taken steps to modernise its judiciary. For instance, the 2017 amendment to Article 17 of the Constitution emphasised the importance of prioritising substantive justice over procedural formalities. More recently, the publication of the Decree Enacting the National Code of Civil and Family Procedures in 2023 marked another milestone. This new code seeks to establish uniform procedures across the country and will be implemented gradually, with full adoption expected by 1 April 2027.

Judicial Reform

The Judicial Reform introduced in 2024 is a bold attempt to address structural and operational deficiencies within Mexico’s judiciary. Its key provisions are outlined below.

Judicial elections

One of the reform’s most transformative elements is the introduction of popular elections for judges, magistrates, and justices. This change aims to enhance accountability and public trust in the judiciary. The first elections, scheduled for 2025, will involve the renewal of several key positions, including:

• all justices of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation;
• the 15 magistrates of the Electoral Tribunal’s regional chambers;
• two vacant magistrate positions in the Superior Chamber of the Electoral Tribunal;
• the five magistrates of the newly created Judicial Discipline Tribunal; and
• half of the federal circuit magistrates and district judges.

A second round of elections in 2027 will address the remaining positions. Additionally, states are required to amend their constitutions within 180 days to align with this new framework.

Restructuring the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of Justice will undergo a significant transformation. The number of justices will be reduced from 11 to 9, with each serving a single, non-renewable 12-year term. Furthermore, the Court will convene exclusively in full sessions, eliminating the use of chambers.

Changes to judicial proceedings

The reform introduces new limitations on the suspension of norms in constitutional disputes and restricts the general effects of rulings in amparo proceedings.

New oversight bodies

The Federal Judiciary Council will be replaced by two distinct entities:

• a Judicial Administration Body, responsible for training, certification, and managing competitive examinations for judicial careers (excluding leadership roles); and
• a Judicial Discipline Tribunal, tasked with monitoring judicial conduct and imposing sanctions as necessary.

Procedural timelines

Procedural laws now mandate a maximum resolution period of six months for judicial cases. Judges must provide detailed reports to the Judicial Discipline Tribunal if delays occur.

Faceless judges

In cases involving organised crime, measures may be implemented to protect the identities of judges, ensuring their safety while maintaining the integrity of the judicial process.

Challenges and Criticisms

While the Judicial Reform aims to address many long-standing issues, it has not been without controversy. Critics, including members of civil society, scholars, legal professionals, and sitting judges, have voiced concerns about its potential impact.

A key point of contention is the introduction of judicial elections, coupled with the minimal personal, academic, and professional requirements candidates must meet to qualify – raising fears that almost anyone could become a judge. While this approach seeks to enhance democratic participation, it has ignited debates about the judiciary’s capacity, specialisation, and independence. Critics argue that elected judges may be unduly influenced by political pressures or public opinion, jeopardising their ability to render impartial and well-reasoned decisions.

The restructuring of the Supreme Court and the creation of new oversight bodies have also sparked debates about centralisation and control. Opponents worry that these changes could concentrate power in ways that undermine the judiciary’s autonomy.

Additionally, the timeline for implementing these changes adds another layer of complexity. The election of judges at both federal and local levels poses significant logistical, administrative, and financial challenges. Ensuring a transparent and fair process while maintaining the judiciary’s continuity will require substantial co-ordination. Without adequate preparation, these elections could further strain an already overburdened judicial system, threatening the intended outcomes of the reform.

Conclusion

The Judicial Reform represents a landmark moment in the evolution of Mexico’s judiciary. By introducing structural and procedural changes, it seeks to address long-standing challenges related to access to justice, judicial independence, and system efficiency. However, its ultimate success will depend on its implementation and the judiciary’s ability to adapt to this new framework.

As Mexico embarks on this ambitious reform, the stakes are high. While the potential benefits are significant, so are the risks. Ensuring that these changes genuinely enhance the administration of justice will require vigilance, collaboration, and a commitment to upholding the rule of law. Only time will tell whether this bold experiment will succeed in transforming Mexico’s judiciary for the better.