MEXICO Trends and Developments Contributed by: Fernando García Gómez, Francisco de Rosenzweig, Yuriria Galicia and Diego Mora-Jensen, White & Case, S.C.
sought methodological precision, the new statutory definition freezes this narrow interpretation, prevent- ing future judicial evolution. Interaction with fiscal legislation The amparo reform cannot be viewed in isolation. The concurrent amendments to the Federal Fiscal Code (FFC) and related proposals embed fiscal collection logic into constitutional litigation. • Restriction of indirect amparo in tax matters until enforcement reaches the auction stage. • Mandatory hierarchy of guarantees – taxpayers must first use deposit certificates up to their finan- cial capacity before resorting to other instruments. • Retroactive effect risk, potentially invalidating stays granted under the previous regime. Together, these measures increase the difficulty of obtaining suspensions against tax assessments or administrative fines, effectively prioritising fiscal col- lection over constitutional rights. Broader assessment The reform package, while presented as modernisa- tion, constitutes a structural regression in the protec- tion of fundamental rights. By codifying restrictive doctrines and eliminating judicial flexibility, Congress has limited the judiciary’s capacity to adapt to new rights or social realities. The prohibition of general- effect rulings undermines the protection of diffuse rights such as the right to a healthy environment, while the politicisation of judges through electoral selection threatens impartial enforcement. From a rule-of-law perspective, Mexico’s amparo now risks becoming a purely formal remedy. Amendments to the Federal Fiscal Code On 9 September 2025, President Sheinbaum submit- ted a bill amending various provisions of the FFC to the Chamber of Deputies. The initiative complements the amparo reform by aligning procedural guarantees with fiscal enforcement priorities. The key amendments propose the following amend- ments that impact constitutional and legal defence mechanisms.
Priority order for guarantee methods Taxpayers must guarantee tax assessments in the fol- lowing mandatory sequence: • deposit certificate; • letter of credit; • pledge or mortgage; • surety bond; Deposit certificates must be provided “up to the maxi- mum of the taxpayer’s financial capacity”, with the bur- den of proving inability to provide them resting on the taxpayer. If the tax authority rejects the guarantee, the amparo court or the administrative tribunal could reject granting a suspension of the collection proceedings. Guarantee requirement for administrative appeals Taxpayers filing an administrative appeal before the Tax Administration Service (SAT) must now guarantee the fiscal interest, eliminating the previous exemption. These provisions limit taxpayers’ financial flexibility and increase their exposure to the tax authority’s dis- cretion. In conjunction with the amparo amendments, they reduce the likelihood of obtaining a suspension of tax acts, thereby intensifying the State’s enforcement power at the expense of judicial oversight. • joint and several obligations; and • administrative attachment of assets. At the time of writing, the Chamber of Deputies is reviewing the bill. Approval, with minor adjustments, is expected before the end of 2025, with entry into force on 1 January 2026. The National Code of Civil and Family Procedure: towards a unified and oral system For over a century, procedural law in Mexico was gov- erned at the state level, resulting in 32 distinct civil and family procedural codes. This fragmentation led to inefficiency, inconsistent jurisprudence and unequal access to justice. In 2017, Congress was granted constitutional author- ity to enact a single national code. After extensive consultation, the CNPCF was finally enacted on 7 June 2023, replacing local procedural regimes with a unified model.
725 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook