CHAPTER IV
OF THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSTITUTIONAL INVIOLABILITY:
Constitution of 1857: Title VIII, Constitutional inviolability established in Article 128 of the Constitution: Article 128. This constitution will not lose its force and vigor, even if by some rebellion its observance is interrupted. In the event of a public disturbance establishing a government contrary to the principles that it sanctions, as soon as the people regain their freedom, their observance will be restored, and, in accordance with it and the laws that would have been issued under its , they will be judged, as well as those who would have figured in the government emanating from the rebellion, with what they would have cooperated with it. ”
There are also two constitutional articles that must be considered: 1.- The constitutional article 9 that determines the following: “an armed meeting has no right to deliberate” this is the case of the alleged constituent congress of Querétaro; and, 2.- The one of article 17 of the constitution that states: “Nobody can exercise violence to claim his right”.
The right to a civil rebellion or a military coup does not exist then, they are not contained within the legislation of any country, since they are not legitimate ways to deal with the tasks of the powers of the State, since there are previously established the appropriate means They offer the legal possibility of doing so under certain regulations, otherwise they would be committing criminal acts.
Regarding political crimes, the Court’s jurisprudence reads as follows: “The right to associate or assemble peacefully with any lawful object and to alter or modify the form of its government; (articles 9 and 39 Constitutional) can not and should be understood only within the framework of legality, that is, groups of the most diverse ideologies can be organized as long as their performance is carried out within the rules set by the legal system that governs us , without using violence or attempting against the established order, because at the moment when the members of a group protected by these guarantees act in contravention of the principles of the Constitution, they are entitled to sanctions corresponding to the illegality of their conduct, then, the purpose of that conduct will have to be framed necessarily and necessarily within the law, that is to obtain the power through the process indicated by the laws “. Source: Seventh Epoch. First Room. Judicial Weekly of the Federation. Volume: 48 Second Part. Page: 49
The acts of a military or civil rebellion do not engender valid legal effects, that is, they are ineffective, nor can the law be broken or broken in order to impose the own views of the mutinous rebels, begotten under the protection of their political excitement or the revenge against the old holders of power. Military rebellions and civil revolutions can only have a moral or historical foundation, but never a legal one, that is; the right to conspiracy, to military mutiny or to the civil revolution does not exist because it is against Article 128 of the legitimate Constitution of 1857. There has never been a “right of rebellion”, then, in the light of the law they are not valid nor legal effectiveness plans, agreements, decrees, reforms, or determinations that the insurgents have imposed, nor its provisions have the character of mandatory force, because the procedure to renew public powers was previously regulated in article 81 of the same Constitution of 1857, which consisted in the holding of extraordinary elections.
Legally, the right to a coup or a revolution does not exist, because they are not contemplated as such within positive law, this means that no law of any country has ever recognized the right to rebellion or armed mutiny, because in their Constitutional legal rules exist adequate means that offer the legal possibility of a reform of the political order. A revolution that is necessarily associated with a public disorder is not allowed in the laws of a civilized society.
Current Jurisprudence establishes for example that: “The usurpation of Victoriano Huerta broke the mold of the Constitution of 1857, it practically remained in suspense, and without application in part, but there was no law that would repeal it expressly and, on the contrary, Revolution recognized its validity, so during the period that has been given the name of pre-constitutional, the Constitution of 1857 existed as law, although the observance of many of its precepts will be suspended due to physical impossibility or incompatibility Absolute. “810743 … Source: Plenary, Fifth Epoch, Judicial Weekly of the Federation, Volume VI, Page 571.
The attempt to reform the legitimate Constitution of 1857 was practically impossible and of null effects because, such procedure was protected by the insurmountable barriers of article 127 of the same constitution; although they could cover a series of points but never the one relative to the ownership of the exercise of the powers of the State, that is to say, so that a constitutional modification could be considered as legal and valid reform, and not as another type of diverse alteration, was It is also necessary that the ownership of the supreme original power be rescued, that primitive power consecrated as legitimate that only corresponded to the ownership of those who exercised it with the support of the electoral suffrage of the Mexican people.
The intention of the revolutionary rebels to set themselves up as the supposed “constituent assembly” gathered in Queretaro in 1917 was not such, since according to the legal expert like the teacher Luis Recasens Siches, it states that: “… not every substitution in power or reform the constitution represents an original production of law, and therefore does not inaugurate a new legal system, nor does it determine a solution of continuity with respect to the previous order. A constitution can be modified or replaced normally and legally, that is, by following the reform procedure prevented explicitly or tacitly in the previous constitution, that is, in which it is modified or replaced; and then in a way the continuity of the state juridical life is broken, since the previous constitutional foundation is superimposed by another new link with it, founded on it; so that the validity of the new constitution does not represent something primitive, it is not something radically original, it is not something new, but it is derived from the validity of the previous constitution, which serves as a foundation to the new one. In the absence of such elements of legitimacy, what was done with regard to the alleged reforms to the constitution of 1857, was not such, because denied the foundation of its legal competence, constituted a new legal system, without connection with the previous one; which would represent a total rupture of the preceding legal order, even if such changes had happened in a peaceful manner “.
The rogue revolutionaries like Diaz, Madero, Huerta, Carranza, Calles, Obregón and the others that have happened to date in the governments contrary to the legitimate Constitution of 1857, could not and can not base their legitimacy on that Constitution being prohibited from the right to the ownership of the constituted power, thus, lost the continuity that was the essential thing in the previous one, and in the case that occupies us, it is clear, clear and notorious that the fictitious organ or power called “constituent” that tried in vain to reform the Constitution of 1857, was not authorized according to that Charter, by virtue of the fact that it did not confer on them competence or constitutional mandate for it because they do not have the ownership of the power or of the powers constituted legitimately, and that only the people confer by the processes of election, those previously regulated by itself and not by way of imposition on the command, under the protection of the force of arms and of the violence expressly prohibited by law, in addition, the 218 impostors of the alleged constituent congress of Querétaro in 1917, were not in a legal capacity to represent anyone, on the grounds that the right to alter and modify the form of government to which refers article 39 constitutional is “inalienable”, by consequence, non-transferable, and could not pass validly to the domain of a third party called “representative”, intermediary or agent, because such prerogative can not be separated, separated or move away from each of its owners which are each Mexican individual, that is, the power to alter or modify the form of government is so personal that it does not admit of agents or intermediaries.