Due to the rejection of the initiative for constitutional reforms in electrical matters presented by President López Obrador, it is intended to accuse the deputies who voted against it of treason.
On the one hand, it has been said that criminal complaints will be filed so that the investigation files are opened and, where appropriate, the penalties provided for in the Federal Penal Code are imposed.
On the other hand, it has been indicated that a citizen consultation will be promoted so that the citizens can determine if progress is made in that direction.
Under any assumption, Morena and his allies think that it is feasible to subject two hundred and twenty-three federal deputies to criminal proceedings for committing the crime of treason.
Due to the seriousness of the accusations and the evident polarization that we are experiencing, it is necessary to take the matter very seriously.
The first thing to say is that article 61 of the Constitution provides that "deputies and senators are inviolable for the opinions they express in the performance of their duties, and can never be reprimanded for them."
In sound constitutional interpretation, the concept of opinion refers both to verbal or written expressions and to the meaning of the votes cast.
This implies that, not even through a criminal or political trial, could those who voted for the aforementioned presidential initiative be held accountable.
At the moment in which the Public Prosecutor's Office –or, in the event that the complaint progresses, a judge– heard of the corresponding accusation, it would have to dismiss it based on the aforementioned constitutional precept.
Being clear the assumption of inviolability, let us suppose that the actions of the prosecution or the administration of justice are diverted.
Let's assume that for "opinions" only what is said or written is considered and not what was voted.
This would force us to give meaning to the crime of treason.
In the Federal Penal Code there are three articles that provide for the cases in which it is considered that Mexicans could commit this crime.
In a synthetic way I expose the typified behaviors to show their seriousness and importance.
In article 123 of the Federal Penal Code, it is foreseen to sanction whoever acts against the independence, sovereignty or integrity of the nation, with the purpose of submitting it to a foreign person, group or government;
through military actions, take part in acts of hostility against the Nation;
be part of armed groups directed or advised by foreigners to attack independence or invade national territory;
destroy the signs that mark the limits of the national territory;
recruit people to wage war on Mexico with the help or under the protection of a foreign government;
has a relationship with a foreign person, group or government or gives information to lead to a possible invasion or disturb the internal peace;
intentionally and without authorization, provide data on military establishments or activities;
hide or help someone who commits acts of espionage;
provide a foreign state or armed groups led by foreigners with the human or material elements to invade national territory or military installations;
request the intervention or establishment of a protectorate or request that war be waged on Mexico;
invite individuals from another State to make weapons against Mexico or invade the national territory;
try to alienate or encumber the national territory or contribute to its dismemberment;
receives or accepts a promise to receive benefits for performing any of the acts indicated in this article;
accept a job from the invader or agree on measures aimed at affirming the intruding government and weakening the national one, and commits, declared war or broken hostilities, sedition, mutiny, rebellion, terrorism, sabotage or conspiracy.
receives or accepts a promise to receive benefits for performing any of the acts indicated in this article;
accept a job from the invader or agree on measures aimed at affirming the intruding government and weakening the national one, and commits, declared war or broken hostilities, sedition, mutiny, rebellion, terrorism, sabotage or conspiracy.
receives or accepts a promise to receive benefits for performing any of the acts indicated in this article;
accept a job from the invader or agree on measures aimed at affirming the intruding government and weakening the national one, and commits, declared war or broken hostilities, sedition, mutiny, rebellion, terrorism, sabotage or conspiracy.
For its part, article 124 of the Federal Penal Code criminalizes the celebration or execution of treaties or pacts with any State that produce or may produce the war in Mexico, or the admission of foreign troops or war units in the country;
the contribution so that, in the places occupied by the enemy, a de facto government is established;
the acceptance of a position proposed by the invader, or the exposure of the Mexicans to suffer harassment or reprisals.
Finally, article 125 provides that those who incite the people to recognize the government imposed by the invader or to accept a foreign invasion or protectorate will be punished.
Given this impressive list of such serious behaviors, which one or ones are supposed to have been updated by the deputies when they voted against the initiative presented by the President of the Republic?
As the subject in question is serious, I am not going to make fun of the rhetorical excesses.
I'm going to focus on the one that has been mentioned as updated by those who want to start the chase.
That is, acts carried out against the independence, sovereignty or integrity of the nation, with the purpose of submitting it to a foreign person, group or government.
The context of understanding this crime cannot be intuitions or patriotic feelings,
Is it credible that the deputies acted against the independence or sovereignty of the nation by not accepting what was proposed by the President in electrical matters?
Was the rejection of the presidential proposals aimed at subjecting the entire nation to a foreign person, group or government?
How are votes linked to national subordination?
Did the two hundred and twenty-three deputies act in common agreement or were there differences between them and they exclude their responsibility?
These are not speculative questions in the context of the intended prosecutions.
Regardless of the inviolability to which I have already alluded, it is difficult to accept that the casting of a vote in a parliamentary seat and in full exercise of the powers inherent to the position constitutes a crime.
To do this, it would have to prove, in any case, the individual link of the specific actions with a foreign government or group to get the vote or, even more complex, the existence of a direct and autonomous interest in that sense.
Let us suppose –again deviating from the rules- that the ministerial authorities assume that, according to the accusations of the majority deputies, the crime of treason could have been committed and that those responsible must be prosecuted.
Only if the immunity that prevents federal legislators from being criminally prosecuted were withdrawn, would it be possible to reach him.
This is where the commission of the crime would have to be proven in a timely manner in terms very similar to what I expressed in the questions I asked, always under the principle of presumption of innocence and overcoming any reasonable doubt.
Regarding the subject of popular consultation, there are several aspects to consider.
The first and most obvious is its origin.
In accordance with the provisions of article 35 of the Constitution, they do not proceed against the permanence or continuity in the position of public servants of popular election.
Given that the submission of the criminal prosecution entails the possible dismissal of the charge, can it be submitted to popular consultation?
My answer is no.
There is nothing to prevent that if a legislator – or another public servant with immunity – is considered to have committed a crime, it is requested that that privilege be withdrawn and that he be put on trial.
However, this does not have to go through the political mechanism of semi-direct democracy.
As I have tried to demonstrate, the legal possibilities of bringing two hundred and twenty-three federal deputies to criminal proceedings for the crime of treason against the fatherland are extremely restricted.
Practically impossible.
What I glimpse, surely other people have perceived.
Many of them in the majority party or its allies.
Why, then, the insistence on something that from now on we know is not going to be possible?
Because it is a strategy that seeks to assign purely political responsibilities for the failure of an important process for the President.
To create a scapegoat through pseudo legal alaracas.
But beyond what has been lived in the past,
It seems to me that all this has been started to threaten from now on those who intend not to submit to the vote on the constitutional reform initiatives that the President himself has announced.
Among the paradoxes that will arise in both situations are those of justification.
Are those who refuse to increase the militarization of the country through the constitutionalization of the National Guard going to be accused of treason?
Are those who refuse to disappear from the National Electoral Institute or to reduce political representation to be charged with the same crimes?
Faced with such predictable scenarios, the strategy seems to be to accuse from now on those who will soon oppose the presidential designs.
there are those of justification.
Are those who refuse to increase the militarization of the country through the constitutionalization of the National Guard going to be accused of treason?
Are those who refuse to disappear from the National Electoral Institute or to reduce political representation to be charged with the same crimes?
Faced with such predictable scenarios, the strategy seems to be to accuse from now on those who will soon oppose the presidential designs.
there are those of justification.
Are those who refuse to increase the militarization of the country through the constitutionalization of the National Guard going to be accused of treason?
Are those who refuse to disappear from the National Electoral Institute or to reduce political representation to be charged with the same crimes?
Faced with such predictable scenarios, the strategy seems to be to accuse from now on those who will soon oppose the presidential designs.
Exclusive content for subscribers
read without limits
subscribe
I'm already a subscriber