The Court opens the door and Coparmex shouts out
The Employers’ Confederation does not mince words. The Supreme Court’s decision to allow the blocking of accounts without a judge to authorize it first, according to them, is a direct blow to the rule of law. And when that concept breaks, everything else shakes.
“This measure generates uncertainty and could negatively impact investment,” the agency warned.
Translation: If a company can have its funds frozen without going through a court, what security does it have to operate? None. It’s playing Russian roulette with the economy.
A blank check with consequences
What worries Coparmex the most are the legal loopholes. The resolution, they say, is so broad that it allows discretionary use of the blockade. That is, it depends on the mood of the official on duty.
That is why they ask Congress to act. Their demands are clear: strict criteria to justify the blockade, maximum deadlines and, above all, prior judicial control. Even if it’s quick, let a judge give the go-ahead.
They also propose to instantly notify the account owner with solid arguments. And something key: a liability regime. If you get blocked for no reason, someone has to pay the consequences.
The final message is forceful. Without these safeguards, a climate of mistrust is created that scares away investors. And in a country that needs capital like air, that’s a recipe for disaster.
