Previous 14 / 115 Next

49 Se advierte que son improcedentes los juicios ciudadanos SUP-JDC-337/2018, SUP-JDC-338/2018, SUP-JDC-339/2018 y SUPJRC-125/2018 al haberse actualizado la causal prevista por el artículo 11, párrafo 1, inciso b) de la Ley de Medios, en razón de que los medios de impugnación han quedado sin materia y, en consecuencia, es procedente el sobreseimiento de éstos, como se explica a continuación: 50 La tesis de jurisprudencia 34/2002 de rubro "IMPROCEDENCIA. EL MERO HECHO DE QUEDAR SIN MATERIA EL PROCEDIMIENTO ACTUALIZA LA CAUSAL RESPECTIVA"[9], establece que cuando cesa, desaparece o se extingue el litigio, por el surgimiento de una solución autocompositiva o porque deja de existir la pretensión o la resistencia, la controversia queda sin materia, y por tanto ya no tiene objeto alguno continuar con el procedimiento de instrucción y preparación de la sentencia y el dictado mismo de ésta, ante lo cual procede darlo por concluido sin entrar al fondo de los intereses litigiosos, mediante una resolución de desechamiento, cuando esa situación se presenta antes de la admisión de la demanda, o de sobreseimiento, si ocurre después. 51 Lo anterior, porque el proceso jurisdiccional contencioso tiene por finalidad resolver un litigio, mediante el dictado de una sentencia por parte de un órgano imparcial, independiente y dotado de jurisdicción. En dicho sentido, la existencia de una controversia es presupuesto indispensable para todo proceso jurisdiccional contencioso. 52 Siendo así, cuando cesa, desaparece o se extingue el conflicto, por el surgimiento de una solución autocompositiva o porque deja de existir la pretensión o la resistencia, el procedimiento queda sin materia y, por tanto, ya no tiene objeto alguno continuarlo. Ante tal situación, lo procedente es darlo por concluido, mediante una resolución de desechamiento (cuando esa se presenta antes de la admisión de la demanda) o de sobreseimiento (si ocurre después). 53 En el caso, se advierte que en los juicios SUP-JDC-337/2018, SUP-JDC-338/2018, SUP-JDC-339/2018 y SUP-JRC-125/2018 se controvierte el acuerdo de la Comisión de Quejas y Denuncias por el que se dictaron medidas cautelares, toda vez que los actores pretenden que esta Sala Superior revoque la determinación por la cual se canceló de forma precautoria los registros de los candidatos que se autoadscribieron como mujer. Create PDF in your applications with the Pdfcrowd HTML to PDF API PDFCROWD

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Mexico SUP JDC 304 2018

Judgment

Question Presented: The High Chamber of the confirmed the validity of the candidacy of two transgender people (muxes in the state of Oaxaca) to occupy public posts reserved for women and revoked the registration of 15 male candidates.

Alleged Acts: On April, 2018, the Institute for Elections and Citizen Participation of Oaxaca (IEEPCO) approved to register 19 people who were self-identified as muxes or transgender, as female candidates for legislative and municipal offices within the gender quotas for women . However, the muxe community of Oaxaca considered that, out of the 19 candidacies, 17 of them were fraudulent since they were only pretending to be transgender. Based on these arguments, members of the muxe community filed a complaint with IEEPCO, against these 17 candidacies. The IEEPCO analyzed the arguments of the claim and, after obtaining some evidence on the gender identity with which these 17 candidates conducted themselves socially, opted to cancel the registration, considering that there were irregularities and that, in its opinion, they were men who had self-identified as transgender women .

Summary: In the ruling SUP-JDC-304/2018 and accumulated dated June 21, 2018, the High Chamber defined two determinant issues: the requirements that the State can demand to any person in order to: 1) prove their gender identity and 2) to access to gender quotas in electoral matters and the measures that the authorities can (and should) adopt to verify the gender identity of a person in order to avoid the fraudulent use of gender quotas. The High Chamber ruled that it is enough to inform the respective authority the gender self-identification with a manifestation that clearly indicates the intent of the person in question. They reached this conclusion for two reasons: due to the application of the principle of progressiveness and to provide the principle of parity or substantive equality a useful and non-discriminatory effect. First, the High Chamber considered that, in accordance with the provisions of articles 1st; 4th; 35th, section II; and, 41th, fourth paragraph of the Constitution, all authorities in Mexico, within the scope of their authority, have the obligation to protect and guarantee human rights, which include legal gender equality, the right to stand for election, and the prohibition of the discrimination of a person due to their gender.

Conclusion: The Electoral Tribunal realized that, as the muxe community had stated, 15 of those 17 candidates had tried to register first as men, but not getting the registration because the male gender quota was already covered, they decided to self-identify as transgender women. For this reason, the High Chamber considered that these 15 applications were contradictory with the second manifestation of self-identification arising from the request made by the IEEPCO. Therefore, independently of the express manifestation of these 15 people self-identifying to the transsexual gender, the High Chamber ordered the cancellation of the registration of these candidacies and ordered to replace them with 15 women.

Legal Issue(s)

Candidate Registration
Gender
Quotas

Region: Americas

Country: Mexico

Language of Decision

Spanish

Court: Electoral Court

Election Type: General

Date of decision: Jun 21, 2018

Geolocation

Latitude: 19.433186441267804

Longitude: -99.13401777615888

: Geolocation

Primary Documents

Mexico- SUP-JDC-304-2018.pdf
Spanish
Download View

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

Mexico SUP JDC 304 2018

Primary Documents

Notifications