Although at the University of Guadalajara (UdeG) Judge José de Jesús N. processed the retirement, at the State Supreme Court of Justice (STJ) does not have the temporality to seek access to that right, explained Daniel Espinosa Licón, president of the State Judiciary; He explained that the judge’s salary is frozen until his legal situation is defined, after evading the process he faces for the alleged abuse of a minor.
“He does not have the time to achieve a right to retirement, today the magistrate’s salary is frozen; it is a remedy that the Judiciary cannot dispose of because the removal from office is provisional; If he eventually wins an injunction and is reinstated, he is reinstated with all his rights, including his salary, which is why that money is frozen. We are waiting for the protection and criminal proceedings to be resolved, that will happen if two things happen or he appears voluntarily to make himself available; or that the authority locates him, captures him and makes him available to the judge, ”he explained.
Espinosa Licón recalled that at first they disbursed 30% of the salary to cover the minimum to the alimony debtors of the judge, but they suspended that payment after the state Congress endorsed the suit of origin against him and that he was declared as subtracted by not appear before the judge who required it for the investigation against him.
The rector of the UdeG Ricardo Villanueva explained that they cannot deny the magistrate to process the retirement, He argued that he would have to show up to collect the checks and warned that if he does, they will inform the authorities that are looking for him for the process against him.
Without defining the retirement of Judge Rojas
Despite the judicial resolution that restored the appointment of Martha Leticia Padilla Enríquez as STJ magistrate and annulled the agreements with which she had appointed Jorge Mario Rojas Guardado, there is no certainty if the judge should be removed from the post and remains until the district judge who resolved the amparo makes the precision; explained Daniel Espinosa Licón, president of the State Judiciary. He denied that the matter has generated setbacks in the operation of STJ rooms.
“It is not an attribution, it is not a power of the Supreme Court and it is not because the law does not give the plenary the possibility of definitively removing a magistrate. We as the Judicial Power were not called to the amparo trial that Judge Martha Padilla demanded, we were never required either as an ordering authority, or as an executor; We are not part of this shelter. We do not have the possibility of determining the status quo of the lord magistrate, ”she commented.