MEXICO Trends and Developments
Mexico is undergoing a significant transformation of its judicial system and its dispute resolution frame- work. The constitutional reforms approved in 2024, together with the entry into force of the National Code of Civil and Family Procedure enacted in 2023, are redefining the manner in which disputes are initiated, managed and, ultimately, resolved. These develop- ments form part of a broader institutional shift that is reshaping the functioning of the judiciary and its inter- action with the legal and political system as a whole. For practitioners, the defining feature of the current landscape is constant change and, consequently, uncertainty. The reforms are intended to modernise the system and, at the same time, to provide great- er protection to the principle of access to justice by increasing procedural efficiency, with the aim of meeting international standards. However, their imple- mentation has been uneven and, in certain respects, remains uncertain, resulting in short-term uncertainty and challenges in the administration of justice. By way of illustration, the administration of justice in Mexico is currently affected by factors such as a lack of con- sistency in judicial reasoning, while the predictability of outcomes and even procedural timelines may vary depending on the court and the stage at which the reform has been implemented. In this context, long-established and pre-existing assumptions regarding litigation are beginning to change. Judicial proceedings are no longer perceived as the most predictable and reliable avenue for dis- pute resolution, which has given rise to a growing interest in alternative mechanisms. Arbitration and mediation, in particular, are increasingly regarded not only as alternatives, but as strategic tools in which the risks currently presented by the system for litigants are reduced. Judicial Reform and the New Composition of the Judiciary The judicial reform published on 15 September 2024 in the Official Gazette of the Federation introduced far-reaching changes to the structure of the Mexican judiciary. These changes have been implemented at both federal and local levels, as the federal implemen- tation constituted the first phase of the reform, and
it is now mandatory for the states to harmonise and adapt their local legislation accordingly. Among the most notable features of this reform is the introduction of the popular election of judges, magis- trates and Justices of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN). At the same time, the number of Supreme Court Justices has been reduced from 11 to nine. Likewise, the former Federal Judicial Council, which was previously the body responsible for the adminis- tration of the federal judiciary, has been replaced by two new bodies: a Judicial Administration Body and a Judicial Disciplinary Tribunal, whose members are also elected by popular vote. Taken together, these changes represent a clear departure from the traditional model, which was based on professional judicial careers and appointments grounded in experience within the system, historically requiring candidates to pass through various filters and examinations that ensured, to a certain degree, their preparedness for the role. The elimination of the judicial career requirement has opened the door to a broader range of candidates. Whilst this may bring greater diversity of perspectives, it also means that not all appointees necessarily possess prior experi- ence in judicial decision-making or court administra- tion. This is particularly evident at the level of the Supreme Court. Several of the newly appointed justices do not come from a conventional judicial background and, consequently, do not have the prior experience required for the role. Historically, candidates for appointment to the Supreme Court were drawn either from within the judiciary itself or from highly experienced practition- ers and academics. Whilst it is true that the current composition introduces a different dynamic that may enrich deliberation, it is equally true that it requires a period of adjustment as new members become famil- iar with the institutional and jurisprudential framework, commonly referred to as the “learning curve”.
375 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook