The most relevant aspects of the aforementioned amendment are:

• The Justices of the Mexican Supreme Court of Justice (MSCJ), the Magistrates of the Collegiate Circuit Courts (CCC) and the District Judges would be appointed by the election through direct and secret vote of the citizens (more than 1,500 officials).
• The MSCJ would be integrated with 9 Justices instead of 11 and would only function in Plenary session, thus disappearing its Chambers.
• The mandate of the MSCJ Justices would be 8, 11 and 14 years, depending on who obtains the most votes during the election process.
• The mandate of the CCC Magistrates and the District Judges would be 9 years and they could be re-elected.
• Both the Executive Branch, as well as the Legislative and Judicial Branches, would propose the candidates to occupy positions in the FJB.
• The electoral authority would be in charge of organizing the election process of the MSCJ Justices, CCC Magistrates and the District Judges.
• The Justices of the MSCJ, the Magistrates of the CCC and the District Judges who are currently in office, would conclude their duties in advance and on the date on which the elected officials take up their duties.
• The Federal Judiciary Council would be replaced by the Judicial Administration Body, which would be made up of officials from the 3 Branches.
• A Judicial Disciplinary Court would be created whose members would be appointed by the election through direct and secret vote of the citizens.
• The granting for stay of executions with general effects against laws or regulations would be prohibited.
• The amendment provides that secondary legislation to implement the constitutional reform must be issued within 180 calendar days (approximately 6 months) following the entry into force of the reform.

We consider that this amendment would not improve the delivery of objective, impartial, rational, prompt and expeditious justice; on the contrary, it would deteriorate it by subjecting the members of the FJB to the interests of the Executive and Legislative Branches. We estimate that it would cause, among others:

• The breaking of the division of Powers as one of the basic pillars of democracy.
• Multiple conflicts of interest (e. type of corruption) between the elected candidates and those who proposed them and provided them with resources, even with the voters themselves.
• Exponential corruption in its several modalities without mechanisms to prevent and mitigate it.
• The absence of career Justices, Magistrates and District Judges within the FJB.
• Having candidates chosen without the broad, in-depth knowledge and legal technique required by such delicate assignments.
• Direct interference by other Powers in the FJB would totally undermine its impartiality.
• The FJB would be subject to purely political interests and not to the interests of true social justice, which would erode its independence.

If the reform is approved in practically all its terms, all the means and defense mechanisms that we have as citizens to protect ourselves from illegal and arbitrary acts by the authorities would be restricted and coerced, since those would be resolved by officials with questionable capacity and lack of impartiality, among other deficiencies.

If you have any questions regarding the foregoing, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Mexico City, June 14^th, 2024

Comments

We estimate that the most relevant aspects are the following:

• The ADRM stated in the Law will be applicable to several matters, such as family law, civil law, commercial law, corporate law, criminal law, administrative law, tax law, social security law, industrial property law, etc.
• The ADRM will be governed by multiple principles, such as: Good Faith, Confidentiality, Honesty, Impartiality, Neutrality, etc.
• The ADRM National Council will be the governing body in matters of public policies regarding the ADRM.
• There will also be an ADRM National Council exclusively on administrative law matters.
• The aforementioned National Councils will be responsible for issuing the certificates to the Facilitating Individuals, whether public or private, whose main faculty will be to promote the communication and agreement for the resolution of disputes between the Parties through the ADRM.
• The Federal Judiciary or the federal entities judicial power, as well as the Federal Court of Administrative Justice (FCAJ) and the Courts of Administrative Justice of the federal entities (CAJ), will have their own ADRM Public Centers to carry out the procedure and provision of ADRM services.
• The Facilitating Individuals will have public faith for the conclusion of the Agreements signed by the Parties, as well as for issuing certified copies of said Agreements and their annexes.
• Any person may request to access to the ADRM procedure verbally, in writing or online before the Public or Private ADRM Centers.
• The processing of the ADRM may or may not derive from a jurisdictional procedure, so if it is the latter case, they may not exceed the period of 3 months, unless the Parties agree to extend the period.
• In any jurisdictional procedure, the authority must inform the Parties of the possibility and right they have at any time, until before the resolution that concludes the procedure is issued, to access to the ADRM Public Center to resolve their dispute through the conclusion of an Agreement.
• On the occasion of the ADRM procedure, the necessary sessions will be held with the presence of the Parties, with the purpose of reaching the conclusion of an Agreement, whether total or partial, or, if it is not reached, they will be left to except their rights to enforce them in the way and manner they deem appropriate.
• From the registration of the Agreements signed by the Parties and subscribed by the Facilitating Individual in the corresponding Agreement System, these will have res judicata
• In the case of Agreements concluded in administrative law matters, these will have res judicata effects once approved by the corresponding Magistrate of the FCAJ or CAJ concerned.

Both the Federal Congress and the Legislatures of the federal entities, no later than January 27^th, 2025, must issue the corresponding regulatory updates for fulfill the Law.

Although the ADRM currently exists in Mexico City and the federal entities, such as the Mediation Agreement in family law, civil law, commercial law and criminal law, the Law will seek to unify the figure of the ADRM at the national level and expand it to other matters, such as administrative law. We consider that the ADRM in tax law will be independent of the figure of the Conclusive Agreement that is processed before the Taxpayer Ombudsman.

If you have any questions regarding the foregoing, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Mexico City, January 29^th, 2024