- The First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation ("SCJN"), in Amparo en Revisión 298/2024, ruled that it is admissible to file an appeal for review in indirect amparo even after the judgment has become final, provided that the requesting party demonstrates that it was not the one who processed the constitutional trial.
- This decision strengthens the right of every person to access justice and effective judicial protection, even when there are procedural errors attributable to third parties.
In a highly impactful ruling, the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (SCJN) recognized that if a person did not file or sign the indirect amparo petition, even if the judgment has already become final, they may file an appeal for review. This interpretation corrects shortcomings resulting from confusion or negligence on the part of others and reaffirms the importance of protecting the legal security and certainty of the plaintiff through timely judicial intervention. The significance of this ruling lies in its emphasis on the principle of effective judicial protection.
It allows for the correction of formal errors that could leave a person unprotected due to procedural lapses, preventing purely procedural issues—such as an incorrect signature or failure to notify the court—from impeding the legitimate exercise of rights. However, it is important for judges to apply this criterion with caution to prevent the provision from becoming a resource misused for purely dilatory purposes. Excessive or strategic use of this option could lead to procedural abuses intended to artificially prolong the resolution of cases and hinder the prompt administration of justice.
In practice, this resolution requires law firms, authorities, and courts to more rigorously review initial amparo claim processes. For authorities, it means ensuring that a fair trial is not impeded by genuine procedural errors, while also preventing their strategic use to delay proceedings. For those seeking justice, it offers a second chance in situations where they were not responsible for the error. For legal departments, it entails strengthening internal procedures, verifying who signs or promotes lawsuits, and considering the filing of extraordinary appeals only in cases where there are genuine procedural flaws beyond the appellant's control.
Our recommendation is to review the internal mechanisms for instructing amparo proceedings to identify and correct possible errors in representation or signature. Furthermore, it is crucial to communicate this criterion to the legal team so that, in viable cases, a review appeal can be prepared even after the judgment has become final, always ensuring that its use is legitimate and not for delaying purposes. Likewise, remaining attentive to possible additional criteria required by the First Chamber will strengthen timely adaptation to this new procedural avenue.
In short, this SCJN decision constitutes a significant step forward in strengthening the protection of defendants against procedural errors. However, its potential to expand access to justice must be balanced with measures to prevent procedural abuses that could jeopardize the effectiveness and speed of the judicial system.
