[ad_1]
After several unconstitutional actions brought against the Homeland Security Act to repeal it, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) has already drafted a resolution proposing that only certain articles and articles be declared unconstitutional. fractions of the controversy. standard
The project of the minister Jorge Pardo Rebolledo, which should be discussed during the first fortnight of November, raises the incidents of unconstitutionality 6/2018 and his acts accumulated on 8/2018 and 11/2018 as well as partially founded and founded sheet 9/2018.
In the document it is necessary to declare Articles 1, 2, 3, 4 valid; the second, fractions I, II, IV, V, VII, VIII and IX.
In addition to validating Articles 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15; first paragraph, 17, 18, first paragraph, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 and the second, third, fourth and fifth transitional internal security.
Some of the problems that should be declared valid are that the armed forces, as part of their actions resulting from the declaration of alert to internal security, will act "with their organization, their means and their training, without neglecting strengthening their capabilities. "This precept is found in Article 28 of the Security Law.
Likewise, it is declared constitutional that the Congress of the Union legislates on the country's internal security, in addition to declaring that the law on internal security does not infringe on the rights of indigenous peoples.
In this sense, several Aboriginal organizations felt that the Security Act was unconstitutional as the standard did not provide for Aboriginal peoples to be consulted when a security alert statement would be enforced in the territories that were being held. ;they occupy.
Minister Pardo's project concludes that there is no constitutional restriction for the armed forces to openly support civilian authorities.
Moreover, in the draft that the ministers will analyze, it is planned to declare Articles 4, in their fractions I, II, IV and X, unconstitutional and void; 11, 15 and 18; these last two articles are intended to be declared invalid except for the first paragraph of each of them.
In addition to the declaration of total invalidity of Articles 6, 8, 9, 16, 26 and 27; as well as the nullity, by extension, of Articles 4, Fraction III and 25.
In Article 16, for example, it is envisaged that "in cases where threats to internal security pose a serious threat to the integrity of persons or the functioning of the fundamental institutions of government, the President of the Republic of its faculties can order immediate actions to the dependencies and the entities of the federal public administration, including the federal forces and the armed forces ".
Another precept that is supposed to be invalid is that the information generated by the actions of the armed forces under the Homeland Security Act is classified as reserved.
It should also invalidate the possibility that the armed forces may act without a request for support or assistance from civil authorities, the basis of which is found in Articles 4, sections I and IV, and in Article 11, in its first paragraph.
It is also invalid that the federal executive can act and declare a threat to internal security without the express request of the civil authorities. This possibility was open to the phrase "just in case" in the second paragraph of Article 11, the Minister's draft clarifies.
He also proposes to urge Congress to develop, at the next session, an assumption on Fraction X of Article 4, which defines and defines the concept of "legitimate use of force". ".
The Homeland Security Act has been criticized by groups of civil organizations, such as Security without War, which groups more than 300 NGOs, who denounced the fact that the law as a whole would lead to the militarization of public security. in the country, which, in turn, can seriously undermine human rights.
Recently, representatives of the said collective approached the Court to request the holding of public hearings in the context of the debate and analysis of the Internal Security Act, published in the Official Journal of the Federation on December 21, 2017.
At that time, the federal executive had announced that the law would not be occupied until the Supreme Court had debated it.
[email protected]
[ad_2]
Source link
