Federico Reyes Heroles
There is no room for interpretation: “No law shall have retroactive effect to the detriment of any person.”
“No one may be deprived of liberty or of their property, possessions, or rights except through a trial conducted before the courts previously established, in which the essential formalities of the proceedings are observed and in accordance with laws enacted before the act.” Article 14 of our Constitution is one of the cornerstones of the rule of law. Yet, just hours ago and in full view of the entire nation, it has been trampled upon. And the public conversation has already moved on. Next, as part of the strategy of systematic destruction.
The words may sound grandiose: cornerstone, trampled, nation. But let’s get to the essence. In Article 14, in just a few lines, two unbreakable principles of the rule of law and of a true democracy are established. The first is non-retroactivity; it is simply unacceptable that anyone could be tried for conduct that is legal today but which, depending on the prevailing mood in the legislature, could be applied to us in the future. Retroactivity does not impede the necessary evolution of laws. Nothing could be further from its defense than seeking legislative paralysis. Simply, out of a basic sense of justice, one cannot penalize someone with a non-existent regulation.
Well, that is exactly what happened to thousands of workers who, for years, even decades, contributed their money to accumulate a pension that was established by law. Excessive or not, they were legal. But suddenly, the false notion of justice held by the authoritarian regime that governs us decided that they were illegal according to the artificial cap on the presidential salary. But what does one thing have to do with the other? If one considers that capping the salary of the head of the executive branch is progressive, then let us be consistent. The head of the federal executive branch has no housing, food, medical services, transportation, family security, clothing, or other expenses paid for by the public treasury. Obama describes how the White House administration operates: there are two accounts—one for official contributions and another for family whims, as was the case with one of his daughters’ fondness for ice cream taken from the official refrigerator. Let’s do the same. But, again, what does that have to do with the legitimate pension rights acquired by workers?
Furthermore, capping the income of public servants starting with the president is a presidentialist aberration, not to mention a monarchical one. This notion of professional excellence stems from authoritarian imagery. If the director of Pemex were to reverse the company’s financial tragedy, he would deserve a bonus for his work. We would be grateful to him.
By capping salaries for qualified professionals whom the market would reward with much more money, perverse incentives are created. First, many capable professionals flee the public sector. Second, they disguise their income with benefits. What do we gain? Who earns more in the United States: J. Powell, head of the Federal Reserve, at $275,000, or the Secretary of the Treasury, at $221,000 annually?
The second major blow to our democracy was the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation’s decision to allow the Financial Intelligence Unit (UIF) to freeze bank accounts without a prior court order. The head of the judiciary is undermining respect for due process, admitting that “suspicions” may be sufficient. “Suspicions” in whose opinion? The law already allowed for freezing accounts at the request of a foreign authority. But now, with no institutional checks and balances, any Mexican citizen or company is defenseless, in the strictest sense of the word. The UIF’s “suspicions” are sufficient.
And this is how they intend to generate certainty, security, investment, and growth?
Another blow: goodbye to Article 14.
Further Reading: