Draft revision of amparo against the LIE is withdrawn

Yesterday, the discussion was scheduled for the confirmation of the appeals filed by private companies and social entities seeking the Court's support so that they are not affected by seven articles of the Electricity Industry Law published on May 11, 2021. More than 200 positions have been filed by different entities rejecting the LIE, stating that it opens the way for violations to free competition, free market competition and the right to a healthy environment for all Mexicans. Several injunctions have been granted by judges Rodrigo de la Peza and Juan Pablo Gómez Fierro.
However, in view of the discussion scheduled for this Wednesday by Minister Laynes Potysek for the confirmation of such appeals, the Secretary of Energy filed a recusal against Ministers Luis María Aguilar and Alberto Pérez Dayan, who are members of the Chamber where they would preside over these matters, with the purpose of delaying the discussion in that instance, according to Mario Alvares for the magazine Energía Debate.
The position of the Secretary of Energy derives from the argument that Justices Aguilar and Pérez Dayan should not be empowered to vote for or against the project due to possible conflicts of interest, since there is a relationship between them and Hugo Arriaga Becerra, who is a lawyer in one of the more than 200 appeals filed by private companies against the reform, which, however, is not included in the projects to be reviewed by the second Chamber of the Court. In addition to this, such questioning by the Secretary also stems from the fact that both ministers belong to the civil association Mexican Institute of Amparo, which on multiple occasions has questioned various public policies and reforms promoted by the current government.
Said consideration to limit the powers of the ministers is based on Article 51 of the Amparo Law, which mentions that the following shall be impediments to vote: I) being a spouse or relative of any of the parties; of the attorneys or representatives; II) when there is a personal interest in the matter, either of the minister or of any of the spouses or relatives; III) if the ministers were attorneys or attorneys in fact; IV) if they had been responsible authorities in the amparo trial; V) if they were advisors in the resolution of the claim; VI) if they were advisors in any amparo trial similar to the one before them. IV) If they have had the character of responsible authorities in the amparo trial; V) If they were advisors of the challenged resolution; VI) If they appear as parties in any amparo trial similar to the one before them; VII) If they have close friendship or manifest enmity with any of the parties, their attorneys or representatives; and VIII) If they are in a situation other than those specified that imply objective elements from which the risk of loss of impartiality could be derived.
This appeal will pause the voting on such matters and will leave it to the discretion of the rest of the justices of the court to determine whether or not the justices indicated fall under any of these precepts. If so, it could be the First Chamber of the Court that would be in charge of defining the course of the amparo projects.
José María Lujambio, a lawyer specializing in energy law, commented that “If general effects are declared, this would also have an effect on the amparos, because if the amendments with general effects are declared unconstitutional, this rule would no longer apply and therefore, the amparos that are pending would no longer have any subject matter, because they would no longer exist in the amendments to the Electricity Industry Law”.