Ex-lawyer for El Chapo wins judge position in Mexico
Silvia Delgado, former defense attorney for Sinaloa Cartel boss Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman in 2016 and current candidate for criminal judge, distributes campaign materials ahead of Mexico's first judicial elections, to be held on June 1, in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, May 12, 2025. REUTERS/Jose Luis Gonzalez/File Photo
MEXICO CITY (Reuters) -Silvia Delgado, a former lawyer for drug kingpin Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman, has won a criminal judge position in Mexico's controversial judicial elections, results showed on Tuesday.
Delgado's candidacy drew scrutiny from opponents to the judicial overhaul, one of the most radical to be enacted by any country in the Western Hemisphere in recent years, stoking concerns that the vote could threaten Mexico's rule of law.
Civil rights group Defensorxs highlighted Delgado, a Chihuahua state-based attorney who represented the notorious former chief of the Sinaloa Cartel in 2016, as a "high risk candidate" for her past ties to El Chapo, a characterization she vehemently rejected.
Critics saw Delgado's bid to become a criminal court judge in the border town Ciudad Juarez as emblematic of broader fears about the vote's threat to Mexican democracy, and the possible removal of checks and balances on the ruling Morena party and the increasing influence of organized crime groups over the judiciary.
The June 1 vote, which stemmed from a sweeping constitutional reform in September 2024, was the first-of-its-kind with Mexico's electorate voting for more than 840 federal judge and magistrate positions, including Supreme Court justices, and thousands more local positions.
Analysts say the newly elected Supreme Court leans heavily towards Morena.
An online vote tally by Chihuahua state electoral body IEE, with 100% of ballots accounted for, showed Delgado netted the second-highest number of votes, securing her a judge position. The results had not yet been formalized on Tuesday afternoon.
As an attorney on El Chapo's legal team, Delgado visited him weekly in prison to share updates before he was extradited to the United States and eventually sentenced to life in prison.
Delgado said she would not comment until her win was formally confirmed.
Defensorxs President Miguel Meza called on Delgado's competitors to file a lawsuit to block her victory on the basis that she does not meet a Constitutional requirement that candidates be of "good reputation."
Defensorxs also flagged a number of other candidates it said should not have been allowed to run, and Meza said the organization had filed complaints for about 20 winning candidates to Mexico's federal electoral authority INE. Meza said the authority had so far not disqualified anyone.
"What INE is doing is basically eliminating the good reputation requirement which is in the Constitution," Meza said in an interview with Reuters.
A media representative for INE declined to comment. The authority has said it would investigate complaints and invalidate any winning candidates deemed unfit for office.
(Reporting by Cassandra Garrison; editing by Stephen Eisenhammer and Leslie Adler)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Free Malaysia Today
a day ago
- Free Malaysia Today
The real roots of judicial power in Malaysia
In the English legal tradition, judicial power is understood as the authority of courts to adjudicate disputes, interpret statutes and common law, and provide remedies. It includes the power to review executive actions for legality and, in some cases, to develop the common law through precedent. However, English courts do not possess the authority to strike down legislation—a limitation that distinguishes their role from that of courts in constitutional democracies like Malaysia. Malaysia's judiciary, while inheriting many functions from the English system, is constitutionally empowered to go further. Our courts do not only interpret and apply the law but also possess the authority to invalidate legislation, constitutional amendments, or executive actions that contravene the Federal Constitution. This power is not derived from Article 4(1) or Article 121(1) alone, but fundamentally from the Oath of Office taken by judges—a jurisprudential foundation that has been underdeveloped and underappreciated since independence. Article 4(1) declares the constitution as the supreme law of the Federation. However, it does not, in itself, confer judicial power. Rather, it sets the constitutional framework within which all branches of government must operate. The true source of judicial power lies in the solemn Oath of Office undertaken by judges, which binds them to preserve, protect and defend the constitution. This oath is not ceremonial—it is constitutional in nature and substance. Similarly, members of the legislature and executive are also bound by their respective oaths to uphold the constitution. When any law, amendment or executive act violates Article 4(1), it is the judiciary's constitutional duty—rooted in their oath—to strike it down. This is not judicial activism; it is judicial fidelity to constitutional supremacy. The Federal Court's decision in Dato Yap Peng v Public Prosecutor (1987) exemplified this principle. In that case, the court struck down a legislative provision as unconstitutional, affirming its role as guardian of the constitution. In response, Parliament amended Article 121(1) in 1988, removing the explicit vesting of judicial power in the High Courts and instead stating that courts shall have such jurisdiction and powers 'as may be conferred by or under federal law'. This amendment was widely interpreted as a curtailment of judicial power. For over two decades, the legal community operated under the assumption that the judiciary's constitutional authority had been diminished. Yet this interpretation overlooked a critical truth: judicial power in Malaysia does not originate from legislative grace. It is constitutionally embedded through the oath of office and the foundational structure of the constitution itself. Calls to amend Article 121(1) to 'restore' judicial power—such as those made by a former law minister—are therefore misplaced. If the 1988 amendment was intended to strip the courts of their constitutional authority, it was a sterile move. Judicial power, like legislative and executive power, flows from the constitution and is anchored in the oaths taken by officeholders. No statutory amendment can override that constitutional reality. My own judicial tenure allowed me to explore and articulate what I call the 'Oath of Office Jurisprudence.' This framework situates judicial power within the broader architecture of constitutional supremacy and the rule of law. It draws from established principles of judicial review and affirms that the judiciary's role is not to dominate, but to safeguard the constitutional order. Unlike the 'basic structure' doctrine developed in India, which courts have used to limit parliamentary power, Malaysia's oath-based jurisprudence avoids judicial hegemony while still providing robust constitutional protection. In my view, the use of the basic structure doctrine to challenge the constitutionality of laws which touch on shariah issues is flawed jurisprudence. In contrast, the oath of office jurisprudence offers a superior route to ensuring that constitutional functionaries and federal and state laws fall in line with the intentions of our founding fathers. Indeed, judicial hegemony—the idea that courts should wield unchecked power—was rejected as early as the Magna Carta in 1215. Our constitutional framers were equally cautious. They ensured that the responsibility to uphold the constitution rests not solely with the judiciary, but with all four pillars of the state: the executive, legislature, judiciary, and the Malay rulers. My contributions to this jurisprudence, including judgments such as Aluma Mark Chinonso, have helped crystallise the parameters of judicial power consistent with the constitution. Since 2017, a series of Federal Court decisions have reaffirmed the doctrine of constitutional supremacy, effectively burying the notion that judicial power was ever truly removed. It is time for Malaysian jurists to invest in developing this uniquely Malaysian jurisprudence. As the late Justice Gopal Sri Ram observed, the oath of office framework introduces a new dimension to the rule of law. It compels all branches of government to banish arbitrariness and act within constitutional bounds. It also offers a broader and more integrated foundation for constitutional review than the imported basic structure doctrine. If embraced, this approach could restore judicial review to its rightful place—not as a 'disabled creature with a thousand tongues and no teeth', but as a principled and effective check on arbitrary power. Doing so would strengthen the rule of law and advance the cause of social justice in Malaysia. The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.
The Star
a day ago
- The Star
LA Dodgers say they denied immigration agents access to Dodger Stadium parking lot
A boy on a scooter passes in front of Gate A of Dodger Stadium after ICE officers were denied access to the stadium's parking lot for staging, in Los Angeles, California, U.S. June 19, 2025. REUTERS/Jill Connelly LOS ANGELES (Reuters) -The Los Angeles Dodgers said they had denied U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents access to the parking lot at Dodger Stadium on Thursday, in the team's first sign of opposition to immigration raids that have rattled California's largest city. The Dodgers, whose baseball fan base includes a significant Latino contingent, have come under criticism from fans and local media commentators in recent days for not speaking out publicly against raids by immigration agents across Los Angeles. The raids sparked street protests, which in turn prompted President Donald Trump to send in the National Guard and U.S. Marines to protect federal personnel and property, fueling more protests and tension. "This morning, ICE agents came to Dodger Stadium and requested permission to access the parking lots," the team said in a post on X. "They were denied entry to the grounds by the organization. Tonight's game will be played as scheduled." The Department of Homeland Security, which includes ICE and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, said CBP vehicles used the parking lot briefly. "This had nothing to do with the Dodgers. CBP vehicles were in the stadium parking lot very briefly, unrelated to any operation or enforcement," DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement. MSNBC showed video of a small number of protesters objecting to the presence of at least four uniformed agents and three vehicles and asking them to remove their facemasks. Los Angeles Times video showed protesters chanting, "Where are the Dodgers?" The Dodgers, coming off a World Series championship in 2024, are a cultural touchstone in Los Angeles. Their Latino fan base has been a large part of the team's identity at least since the "Fernandomania" craze surrounding Mexican-born pitcher Fernando Valenzuela in the early 1980s. After nearly two weeks of silence over the raids, the Dodgers were due on Thursday to announce plans to assist immigrant communities, the Los Angeles Times reported, citing a team spokesman. The Dodgers did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment. "It's kind of upsetting that they haven't spoken up," Kimberly, a fan who did not want to give her full name, told Reuters at Dodger Stadium before Wednesday night's game. She praised Enrique "Kike" Hernandez, the popular utility player and Puerto Rican native, who recently posted that he could not stand to see the Los Angeles community being "violated, profiled, abused and ripped apart." Hernandez received a huge ovation from the crowd when he came to bat on Wednesday. Lifelong Dodgers fan Dmitri Turner said that while he would like to see the team use its platform to address the "bad things going on" with ICE detentions, he understood that the organization might want to keep its focus on the field. "Maybe they'd rather leave that to the politicians and give the fans what they want, which is good baseball," he said in the parking lot of Dodger Stadium. While the immigration raids may appeal to Trump's base of supporters over concerns about border security, many community leaders in heavily Democratic Los Angeles have publicly opposed the operations. Mayor Karen Bass has denounced them as provoking more tension and as harmful to the local economy. Singer Nezza sang the U.S. national anthem in Spanish at Dodger Stadium on Saturday, injecting a form of protest into the patriotic tradition before the baseball game. The professional soccer clubs LAFC and Angel City FC have issued statements of support for immigrants but otherwise the city's sports franchises have refrained from commenting. (Reporting by Rory Carroll in Los Angeles and Daniel Trotta in Carlsbad, California; editing by Colleen Jenkins and Diane Craft)
The Star
a day ago
- The Star
No issue with House refusal of Sara Duterte lawyers' papers, says prosecution spokesman
Reginald Tongol (left) and Antonio Bucoy. - Photo from Regie Tongol & Associates Law and Communications Facebook page and video screengrab MANILA: The House of Representatives' decision not to receive the entry of appearance made by Vice President Sara Duterte's lawyers for the impeachment trial should not result in any issue, prosecution spokesman Antonio Bucoy said. In his first-ever press briefing held on Tuesday (June 17), Bucoy was asked why the House supposedly refused to receive the entry of appearance sent by the defence counsel on Monday (June 16) afternoon. Bucoy admitted that he does not know the exact reason, but noted that this should not be an issue, because the phrase 'tender copy refuse to receive' indicates that it was as if the document was received. 'I would like to clarify. I do not know the reason why. But the bottom line is that nobody was hurt, there was no damage. Because when they tendered the service of the entry of appearance, tender means you are constructively served. So, regardless of whether they accept it or not, the purpose was served because it was tendered. So as if you received it,' he explained. ''When it is tendered, the document is left with the chamber. The term 'tender' was used because they did not acknowledge that they had already received it. Nonetheless, like what I said, no harm, no foul. Nobody was hurt here, nobody was aggrieved,' he added. According to Bucoy, he is not sure whether the recent circumstances surrounding the impeachment proceedings have led to an impediment — which may be a reason why the House did not receive the entry of appearance. 'Now I do not know if there was an impediment or none that's why the entry was not accepted, or what is the exact reason why it was not accepted. But like I said earlier, no harm, no foul because the service […] was tendered so as if it was received. There is no damage,' he added. On Monday night, Senate impeachment court spokesperson Reginald Tongol confirmed that Duterte's counsel has entered its appearance, with 16 lawyers defending her — including those from the Fortun Narvasa & Salazar law firm. However, Tongol said that the House was 'indicated in page 3 to have been copy furnished as well today at 3.42pm, but has a note 'Tender Copy refuse to receive.'' Tongol said in an interview with DZMM on Tuesday that the House's refusal to accept the document may delay the impeachment proceedings. Duterte was impeached last February 5, after 215 lawmakers filed and signed a verified impeachment complaint against her. The articles of impeachment were immediately sent to the Senate as the Article XI, Section 3(4) of the 1987 Constitution states that a trial should proceed forthwith if one-thirds of House members file the complaint. As one-third of 306 House members is 102, the requirement was fulfilled. However, trial did not start as the articles of impeachment were not sent to the Senate plenary before session adjourned for the election season break. And when the proceedings were supposed to start last June 3, the Senate eventually approved a motion to remand the articles back to the House, due to alleged constitutional infirmities. The House prosecution team, however, said that they will defer acceptance of the returned articles, and will file a motion seeking clarification as one of the Senate's requests — a certification from the 20th Congress that they will pursue the impeachment — cannot be complied with now. Duterte's impeachment was hinged on different issues, like allegations of confidential fund misuse within her offices which were uncovered during the hearing of the House committee on good government and public accountability, and threats to have President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and Romualdez assassinated. - Philippine Daily Inquirer/ANN
