The effective dissemination of judicial decisions as part of its nature as a speech act when its beneficiaries are undetermined


By: Graciela Zamudio Campos


In this article we will expose the importance of effective dissemination as an essential element of the impact of judges’ resolutions due to their nature of speech acts, in particular, if they protect the rights of determinable groups of people, as is the case of “The Amparo of Tijuana, 1597/2018”.


This is a constitutional lawsuit filed during the presence of the migrant caravan in the city of Tijuana, Baja California at the end of 2018, by Alma Migrante, AC to protect the right of all people in the city to have access to truthful information on the limits of the actions of their authorities. We also seek to protect the right of foreigners not to be illegally handed over to the National Institute of Migration after their detention.


We achieved firm precautionary measures that establish obligations for the municipal authorities consisting, among various effects, of suspending a practice lacking legal support consisting of the collaboration of the Municipal Police and the National Migration Institute to achieve mass and express deportations.


The substantive ruling granted protection for the same purposes, in addition to ordering that the Municipal Police refrain from conducting immigration checks and providing public security to all people, regardless of their nationality.


It was appealed by the responsible authority; currently the corresponding appeal is in the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation awaiting resolution on the Exercise of the Faculty of Attraction, requested by the collegiate court that had to hear the appeal in Mexicali, Baja California.


The ruling does not have the effect of preventing the municipal authorities from carrying out their crime prevention and investigation activities or the imposition of sanctions for administrative infractions.


Nor does it prevent them from collaborating with the INM when so requested by the competent authority; however, such activities must be carried out in strict adherence to legality and respect for the human rights of migrants.


The trial was presented before the federal courts in the city of Tijuana, in Baja California, Mexico, against pronouncements of the then Mayor and Secretary of Municipal Public Security of the city in the presence of the migrant caravan that arrived at the end of 2018. It detonated us the need to defend the right of access to information of the population in Tijuana so that their rulers do not give them erroneous information about the limits of the actions of their authorities.


On November 16, 2018, the Mayor issued an illegal verbal order consisting of sending people in the context of migration detained by municipal authorities to the immigration authorities of the National Institute of Migration and asked citizens to report suspicious cases. On November 25, 2018, the migrants of the caravan crossed the storm drain of the city known as El Bordo, in a failed attempt to enter the United States of America (Malkin, 2018).


The next day, on November 26 of that year, the then Secretary of Public Security issued a declaration of compliance with the aforementioned verbal order, that is, on the delivery he had made to the National Institute of Migration of Central Americans in the context of detained migration. by municipal authorities.


The Judicial Power of the Federation determined that the acts claimed by the municipal authorities are unconstitutional, through resolutions that constitute speech acts, which have been identified by the philosophy of law as an intention expressed in a sentence and the basic unit of human communication. ; that is, the production of the claim or instance in which they are made (Arango, 2017).


Well, the judge’s intention to protect this right only finds the production of the intended result when the recipients receive the message efficiently, thus completing the speech act process of the Mexican State, in protection of their right of access to information. .


The purpose of the Amparo de Tijuana is for the population in Tijuana to know that the practice publicly ordered by the authorities is illegal, so that the people who benefit only receive the impact of the production of the judge’s intention, understood as simple communication and enough of its contents with sufficient intensity and for sufficient time for the judge’s speech act to be consummated.


This is why it is important that the legal language has a channel of real and assertive communication with said population. Communicating the contents to society in general is not always easy, since for a long time the legal language has been archaic and elaborate, hindering its proper understanding and facilitating erroneous interpretations, complicating the dialectical relationship between the authorities, society and compliance with the law.


This effect includes the authorities that have violated the law for a long time carrying out the practice ordered by the authority, since the municipal police officers are obliged not only to disobey illegal orders, but also to report them in accordance with the legislation that regulates them.


Note: this article was first published in CENTUM magazine, Year 1, Number 1, edition: January-March 2021. It was republished in this section for the purposes of the Alma Migrante-February 2022 newsletter.




Arango Restrepo, GJ 2017, ‘John Searle’s Theory of Intentionality’, Sophia: Philosophy of Education Collection, No. 22, pp. 81-100, consulted:


Malkin, E., 2019, ‘The United States closes the passage through Tijuana after an onslaught of hundreds of migrants’ [online], The New York Times, November 25, 2018, Accessed: en/2018/11/25/english/americalatina/tijuana-migrantes-san-ysidro.html

Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial