The great liberal persuasion consisted of discovering that there were ways to defend an individual against the power of the State. For millennia, from the dawn of human presence on earth until not long ago, it was considered that the only right was that of the strong. Might makes right, as they say in English.
There are some well-known stations in the great liberal history: the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the principle of separation of powers and what is known in Mexico as the Amparo.
The term itself has a humanitarian dimension. When we talk about someone being helpless we mean that a person has lost protection from the elements. A homeless man has been abandoned to his fate and, perhaps, to his death.
In its most general meaning, Amparo is the most radical form of human solidarity. To see Amparo in action is to see that the law can be in favor of the weak. And, in some way, we are all weak in the face of the State.
Hence the indignation that we should all feel at the approval of a reform that will damage the institution of Amparo for years to come. It must be said with absolute clarity: the blow to Amparo did not refer to mere technical adjustments, but rather represents a broad-spectrum change in the relationship between the citizen and public power. It means a restriction on the justice of citizens by those in power. This is seen more clearly in what has to do with suspension and legitimate interest.
The suspension implies something that anyone can understand as a fair measure: that is, that while a trial is taking place no harm should be caused to a citizen. Without this guarantee, Amparo is a dead letter. However, the approved reform involved changing article 128 in order to introduce requirements that would put the use of suspension at risk. Among them one that has no precedent in our legal tradition. Namely: the so-called public interest. A term so general that it would undoubtedly be interpreted in favor of the authority against the citizen. Its introduction gives strength to power and takes it away from people. Furthermore, the concept has no constitutional or jurisprudential bases.
As for the so-called public interest, those who fought for it do not seem to understand that the Amparo was born precisely for those who do not have the capacity to prove a right that perhaps cannot be justified prima facie but that undoubtedly exists.
The government has reformed the fifth article, first section, so that those requesting Amparo can prove that the alleged impact is true and not merely hypothetical. The result of all this will be that not only individuals, but communities will not be able to defend themselves, in fact, against arbitrary acts of public power.
With the approval of such reform, the great liberal cry in favor of citizen rights has been silenced in Mexico, to our shame.
@gdehoyoswalther
Lawyer and deputy of the Citizen Movement