“What head does it fit in!” : Former President of the PRD rejected Pablo Gómez's proposal to criminalize abstentionism in the Revocation

Jesús Ortega Martínez, former national president of the Democratic Revolution Party (PRD), rejected the statement issued by the head of the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU), Pablo Gómez Álvarez, on penalizing citizens who did not participate in election day last April 10.

Through his official Twitter account, Ortega Ramírez said that the words of the former federal deputy respond to the “feeling of defeat” represented by the government of President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO), due to the “few” votes that were won.

He also questioned “in which head is it possible” to penalize or punish the nearly 77 million Mexicans who abstained from voting, since, from his perspective, they decided “not to validate the charade of consultation.”

“Such is the feeling of defeat that deprives the government of @lopezobrador_ that @PabloGomez1968 wants to sanction those who decided not to validate the charade of consultation. There are almost 77 million citizens @s who are trying to penalize. What head does it fit in! ”, he wrote this Thursday, April 14.

The words of the former leader of the Sol Azteca were in response to the tweets that the official published on April 13, in which he cited the obligations for the adult population established by the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States (CPEUM).

And it is that in the messages published by Gómez Álvarez he recalled that the suspension of electoral rights for up to one year is specified for those who do not comply with the duty to go to the polls.

In response to this, he repromulgated that the National Electoral Institute (INE) did not inform Mexicans that voting in the Mandate Revocation was mandatory.

However, it should be recalled that article 35 of the Constitution establishes that voting is a right for all citizens, so there would be no constitutional sanction.

However, the Federal Law on the Revocation of Mandate is what shows it as “an obligation”, although it explains that it will have to be a federal judge who determines whether or not a citizen is entitled to the suspension of his electoral rights.

Given such a panorama, one could speak of a legal vacuum and, even, a probable lack in the law because it is going against what is established by the highest law in the country.

Article 7 of the Act stipulates that voting in elections constitutes a right and an obligation exercised to integrate organs of the popularly elected State. But article 447, on infringements by citizens, does not include the omission of voting as a misdemeanor or offence that merits any sanction.

That is, they constitute infringements of citizens to provide false documentation or information to the Federal Register of Voters or the promotion of frivolous complaints.

For the Mandate Revocation consultation, the electoral roll consisted of 92,823,216 citizens, of whom only 16,502,636 people, that is, 17.7% exercised their right to vote in this exercise. In this way, around 82% decided not to go to the polling stations.

KEEP READING: