.svg)
Amparo Law Reform Bill...an ineffective trial?
On September 15, 2025, the Federal Executive sent to the Mexican Congress an initiative to amend the Amparo Law, the Organic Law of the Federal Court of Administrative Justice and the Federal Tax Code.
Below, we will proceed to analyze the most relevant aspects of the initiative to amend the aforementioned laws.
- AMPARO LAW.
Among the proposed changes, we find that it seeks to standardize the online Amparo Trial, through the amendment of Articles 3, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 30, so that the Amparo Law is in accordance with the different General Agreements previously issued by the Federal Judicial Power, which had been administratively regulating the substantiation of the Constitutional Trial through such modality, which would be optional for the plaintiffs.
Regarding time limits, it is proposed to amend Articles 59 and 60, in order to prevent any of the parties from challenging the judge, whether Judge or Magistrate, for the sole purpose of generating a procedural delay, in which case, the challenge must be dismissed; likewise, such challenge must be filed before the matter in question is listed, except for those cases in which the matter is removed from the session list or is postponed.
Additionally, regarding deadlines, the following is proposed:
- Set a period of five days to notify the parties of the admission of an Appeal for Review (Article 82);
- Once the Constitutional Hearing has been held, the respective sentence is expected to be issued within 60 calendar days(Article 124).
- A period of five days to notify the admission of the complaint for direct amparo (Article 181).
Regarding the extension of the claim, the initiative seeks to amend Article 111 in order to establish that the act or fact that generates the extension has not been known to the plaintiff prior to the filing of the claim, and also seeks that the assumptions for the extension of the claim be applied exhaustively.
With respect to the evidence that may be offered, it is intended to amend Article 121, so that the time period for the offering of evidence cannot be extended due to the deferral of the constitutional hearing, except in those cases in which the parties intend to disprove facts of which they did not have knowledge with sufficient legal anticipation due to causes not attributable to their carelessness or negligence within the proceeding.
Another significant change is found in the matter of suspension(Article 129), since the initiative intends to expand the list of cases in which the suspension of the challenged act is not appropriate.
One example is the blocking of bank accounts, since the suspension of such accounts is denied on the grounds that their granting, it is said, affects the social interest and contravenes public order, in addition to the fact that they hinder the functions of the Financial Intelligence Unit.
In another case, it is proposed to deny the suspension when it implies the continuation of activities or services that require a permit, authorization or concession issued by a competent authority, when such permit, authorization or concession has been revoked.
In the case of final tax credits or resolutions on the statute of limitations, it is intended to establish that the suspension may be granted as long as the tax interest of the federation has been guaranteed before the tax authority, in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Tax Code.
Another change proposed in the initiative under analysis here is the exemption from granting a guarantee, for purposes of granting the suspension, when the same is requested by decentralized agencies, public companies of the State, state-owned majority-owned companies, National Credit Institutions, Insurance and Bonding Institutions, Public Trusts, Funds and Mandates(article 137).
Regarding the enforcement of judgments, the initiative proposes adding to Article 192, the power for the District Judges to previously analyze the framework of action of the authorities that may comply with the respective judgment, in order to verify that within the scope of their competencies they may execute acts related to the respective compliance.
With respect to the foregoing, in an alarming manner, the initiative seeks to amend Articles 262, 267 and 269, with the purpose that the authorities that are obligated to comply with the amparo judgments, if applicable, may demonstrate in a founded and motivated manner the legal or material impossibility to carry out such compliance, in which case, there will be no penalties or any other type of liability for the respective authority.
Finally, among the most relevant aspects, the proposal sent by the Federal Executive introduces, in a very unclear manner, a concept of "legitimate interest", which will be accredited by demonstrating that the norm, act or omission that is claimed, causes in the complainant a real, current and differentiated legal injury from the rest of the people, in such a way that the annulment or cessation of the affectation, produces a certain, direct and not hypothetical or eventual benefit, before a virtual concession of the protection of the Federal Justice.
- ORGANIC LAW OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE AND THE FEDERAL TAX CODE.
Articles 3 and 124 of the aforementioned laws, respectively, are amended in order to broaden the catalog of inadmissibility of the Federal Administrative Litigation and the Recourse of Revocation, in order to prevent the filing of such defense actions against acts issued within the administrative enforcement procedure (PAE), or in the case of acts or resolutions that resolve requests for the prescription of final tax credits.
- IMPLICATIONS AND COMMENTS.
Having addressed the most relevant aspects proposed in the initiative under study, we will now address the implications that, if approved, would radically change not only the Amparo Proceedings, but also the Mexican legal system.
Indeed, the Amparo Trial is a means of control of constitutionality and, as of 2011, of conventionality[1], perhaps being, until before the proposed initiative, the most effective legal instrument of our system, an example superior to all comparable legal figures in the world, constituting, without a doubt, the most important legacy or contribution of Mexico to the world in legal matters. It is valid to make such assertion, by virtue of the fact that any individual who, as a result of an illegal action by the Mexican State, has had any of his Fundamental Rights violated, may go before a federal jurisdictional body to request the Amparo and the Protection of the National Justice against the act in question.
In view of this, after the corresponding substantiation within the Constitutional Judgment, the individual or complainant may, at present, see: i) the act that violates his legal sphere and violates his Fundamental Rights suspended, either provisionally or definitively, and ii) in the case of obtaining the Amparo and the Protection of Federal Justice, the effective guarantee of compliance with the judgment issued in his favor or the restitution of his rights by the authority that is responsible, or the one in charge of compliance.
Having establishedthe foregoing, it is pertinent to note that the suspension of the challenged act within the Amparo proceeding is an essential pillar on which the same depends, since its subsistence and a great part of its procedural development depends on the granting of such precautionary measure, since such measure has the purpose of maintaining things in the state they are in, thus avoiding that the challenged acts of authority be executed or materialize in an irreparable manner to the detriment of the plaintiff, making the Amparo itself inadmissible.
As we can see, the suspension is of vital importance, since it is part of the very essence of the Amparo Trial. However, from the content of the reform initiative, when it intends to limit the assumptions for its proceeding within the Constitutional Trial itself, it clearly translates into a completely regressive proposal, which directly attempts against the Fundamental Rights of the governed.
This is because, as we can see, from a reading of the initiative to reform the Amparo Law, particularly in the matter of suspension, we can see that, rather than a contribution that could enhance, strengthen or generate greater security to the legal sphere of the governed, by strengthening a legal figure that is a symbol and national pride, it seems rather to have the objective of denigrating it, by including in a generic manner assumptions of inadmissibility without considering the legal situation of the plaintiff, thus opening the door to the practice of more and greater arbitrary acts by the authorities, added to the fact that, with a current Federal Judicial Power lacking credibility, we are undoubtedly facing a regressive proposal, which is totally detrimental to the guiding legal principles, on which the entire Mexican system rests.
Now, in the matter of compliance with amparo judgments, we may note that, in the same manner, it is intended to weaken or convert the Amparo Judgment into a figure lacking any legal force or effectiveness, since once again it will be up to the Amparo Judges to decide whether the responsible authority may or may not carry out the respective compliance, without there being any type of sanction for such authorities.
In effect, through the proposed amendment to sections 262, 267 and 269, for those authorities that are obligated to comply with Amparo judgments, it will be sufficient for them to "demonstrate" in writing in a "founded and reasoned" (SIC) manner, the impossibility, whether legal or material, in which they find themselves to comply with the judgment in question, without any type of consequence for the authority that fails to comply.
In view of such proposal, we consider that the Amparo will undoubtedly lose all purpose, since it would be stripped of its coercive force to enforce compliance with the judgments issued in the matter, regardless of whether the justification for the respective non-compliance is a true legal or material impossibility, since the protagonist will be the "capacity" of the responsible authority to comply, whose determination will be at the absolute discretion of the judge and the justification, if any, presented by the responsible authority itself.
Finally, the reform initiative under study incorporates, in an unclear manner, a definition of legitimate interest, which could be equated, in any case, to legal interest, further distorting the assumptions for the proceeding of the Amparo Trial via legitimate interest. Thus, by virtue of pretending to equate legitimate interest with legal interest, we witness an involution in the Amparo Trial itself and the progress that has been achieved as of the reform of June 6, 2011, as well as what has been built in the matter of legitimate interest through the Jurisprudence that for such purposes has been issued by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, as in the case of the "Laguna del Carpintero" [2], in which the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit via legitimate interest to defend their fundamental environmental rights, thus setting a very important precedent.
Worryingly, we can conclude that we are faced with a reform initiative that is inequitable and contrary to the ideals of Manuel Crescencio García Rejón y Alcalá, together with Mariano Otero y Mestas, Ignacio Burgoa Orihuela, Ignacio Luis Vallarta Ogazón, Genaro David Góngora Pimentel, Alberto Del Castillo Del Valle and Hugo Alberto Arriaga Becerra, who, together with all those eminent jurists who throughout history have sought to disseminate, exalt and enrich our Amparo Trial, today can see with disappointment what they intend to do with the Amparo Trial, together with all those eminent jurists who throughout history have sought to disseminate, exalt and enrich our Amparo Trial, today can see with disappointment what they intend to turn a legal institution born to defend the governed against the illegal actions of the authorities into.
It is for all of the foregoing reasons that it is essential to highlight how regressive and detrimental the attempted reform initiative could be, since if it is consummated, it would seriously threaten the Fundamental Rights of the governed, as it is a clear involution of the legal institution of the Amparo Judgment, since it undoubtedly reduces its effectiveness and coerciveness in terms of its application, because now the governed, although he may see his rights restored through the issuance of the respective judgment, the authority involved may totally evade its compliance, without any responsibility, under the protection that the law itself would provide him, with which it would seem that it seeks to protect the latter and not the former, being the original spirit of the Amparo Law, the protection of the governed against the acts of the authority.
Therefore, at Pérez Góngora y Asociados we will be closely following the development of the legislative process through which the reform initiative to the Amparo Law that concerns us is approved, with the sole intention of reviewing its constitutionality and, if necessary, to promote the corresponding means of defense in order to defend the Fundamental Rights of our clients.
1Let us remember that since the reforms in Human Rights matters, in which the Mexican State was forced by the Inter-American Court to change its legal system on the occasion of the file "varios 912/2010, caso Rosendo Radilla Pacheco vs Estados Unidos Mexicanos", among the most relevant changes, we find that Mexico had to implement a means of defense according to the standards of Fundamental Rights, established in the International Treaties on the matter to which the Mexican State is a party.
2 To learn more about the case in quotation, see: Amparo en Revisión 307/2016.
