Constitutional rights amparo writ of protection
1 / 17

- PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Updated On :

Constitutional Rights Amparo (writ of protection). Latin American Law. Last updated 24 Oct 11. B. Pop Quiz (1). A. Identify the country A. T he Justices of the Supreme Court do not fear an evaluation of their actions or behavior.

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about '' - eavan

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Constitutional rights amparo writ of protection l.jpg

Constitutional Rights Amparo (writ of protection)

Latin American Law

Last updated 24 Oct 11

Pop quiz 1 l.jpg


Pop Quiz (1)


Identify the country

A. The Justices of the Supreme Court do not fear an evaluation of their actions or behavior.

B. Constitutional amendment process by legislature and states is a “sovereign function” that cannot be questioned

C. Constitutional convention assures presidential re-election subject to power of chief of ministers and judicial council.

D. The President of the Republic may adopt provisional measures with the force of law and shall submit them to the National Congress immediately



Erga omnes fundamental aspect of stare decisis l.jpg

Erga omnes …(fundamental aspect of stare decisis)

Aggrandizes judiciary?

Otero formula: compromise btn full-fledged, no judicial review

Robbie Samuel

Slide4 l.jpg









Puerto Rico







“Case law”



El Salvador









Costa Rica








Pop Quiz (2)






  • Identify the country

  • 5 consecutive decisions (8/11 or 4/5 on Sup Ct / unanimous circuit)

  • 3 consecutive decisions (Sup Ct)

  • “Reiterated precedent” (Sup Ct)

  • Constitutional Chamber binding







Writ of protection amparo tutela proteccion l.jpg

Writ of protection …(amparo / tutela / proteccion)

Pobre mexico tan lejos de dios tan cerca de los estados unidos attributed to porfirio diaz l.jpg

“Pobre Mexico, tan lejos de Dios, tan cerca de los Estados Unidos.” attributed to Porfirio Diaz

Slide7 l.jpg

Hypothetical Unidos.”

Federal environmental law provides that costs (including attorneys fees) can be assessed against litigants and their lawyers who bring “spurious lawsuits” in federal court.

The NRDC, represented by Alan Dershowitz, sues the EPA for defining CO2 as a “non-pollutant.” The NRDC says that the EPA has not followed the mandates of the Clean Air Act.

The district judge hearing the case dismisses the complaint, and enters an order against the NRDC and Dershowitz to pay the government’s significant litigation costs.

How is judicial review handled in the United States? In Mexico?

Section 1983 claims

Robbie Samuel

Slide8 l.jpg

Judicial review (US) Unidos.”

Federal law(Congress)



Writ ofmandamus






Habeas corpus

Writ ofmandamus

Appealof right

Adm agency

(1) EPA says notregulate CO2



(2) OKs EPA decision

(3) Orders party costs

APA (r/m)

Slide9 l.jpg

Writ of protection Unidos.” (Mexico)

Judicial review (Mexico)

  • Administrative acts (judge orders costs)

  • Challenge administrative of justice

  • Exhaust administrative remedies

  • Sue for writ in district court (w/ appeal)



important +


  • Legislative acts (EPA definition of CO2)

  • Legality of regulation

  • Plaintiff must show actual injury

  • Sue for writ in district court (w/ appeal)






  • Adjudicative acts (judge dismisses case)

  • Challenge legality of final decision

  • Bring after appeals exhausted

  • Sue for writ in circuit court (no appeal, unless “important and transcendent”)


District Court

(ordinary court)

Is this justice? Sam Wellborn

Slide10 l.jpg

Mexican judges … exercise their discretion Unidos.” in applying the law to a case, and are not hampered by precedent..

Historically, Mexico’s judicial branch has been much weaker than the legislative and especially the executive branch

Sam Wellborn

(compare autocracy and legal systems)

Mexican sugar workers union v hernandez rivera mex sup ct 2001 l.jpg

Mexican Sugar Workers Union Unidos.” v. Hernandez Rivera(Mex Sup Ct 2001)

What is real issuewith exclusionary clause?

Slide12 l.jpg

Mexican Constitution (1917) Unidos.”

Article 4. No person can be prevented from engaging in any lawful … occupation. The exercise of this liberty shall only be forbidden by judicial order when the rights of third parties are infringed,

Article 5. A labor contract … in no case may embrace the waiver, loss, or restriction of any civil or political right.

Article 9. The right to assemble or associate peaceably for any lawful purpose cannot be restricted ….

Article 123(A)(XVI) Both employers and workers shall have the right to organize for the defense of their respective interests, by forming unions, professional associations, etc.

* * *

Article 14. In civil suits the final judgment shall be according to the letter or the juridical interpretation of the law; in the absence of the latter it shall be based on the general principles of law.

Slide13 l.jpg

Substance of opinion Unidos.”

Federal Labor Act blatantly infringes on unionization and association liberties.

Constitutional supremacy precludes absurd conclusion that employees exercising their constitutional right may lose their jobs pursuant to inferior law.

The arrangement under consideration leads to “co-opted unions” and to a leadership that focuses on its own instead of the workers interests.

Mariano Azuela Guitron

(Mexican Supreme Court)

Policy implications?

Union corruption?

Slide14 l.jpg

Structure of the opinion Unidos.”

issue not stated until Section V of “Considerations” (the sixth page of the abridged opinion), and not stated in specific detail until the tenth page

over four paragraphs are devoted to legal scholarship and its relevance, and before any discussion of actual, binding Supreme Court precedent

Opinion explains in detail the maze for identifying precedent—the five-in-a-row rule—only to conclude that there is no exact, applicable precedent.


Mariano Azuela Guitron

(Mexican Supreme Court)


Distinguish jurisprudential thesis and discrete thesis l.jpg

Distinguish “jurisprudential thesis” Unidos.” and “discrete thesis”

Thesis 64 /2001: Appellate review of direct protection suits: (1) timely, (2) constitutional issue, (3) important and transcendent. Exceptional or extraordinary arguments; outstanding impact on constitutional doctrine.

Thesis 59/2001: Federal Labor act, which permits exclusionary clauses in union contracts, impinges on Constitution article 5, 9, 123.


Slide16 l.jpg

Code of Justinian forbids reference to previous decisions, especially those with which the deciding judge disagrees. Code warns against perpetuity granted to wrong decisions by judges who value stare decisis: “judgment is to be given not according to precedents, but according to law.”

Slide17 l.jpg

End especially those with which the deciding judge disagrees.