In a recent public statement, José Luis Álvarez Pulido, president of Jalisco’s judiciary, called for delaying the state’s proposed judicial reform until 2026. The appeal, delivered shortly after his first annual report in office, reflects growing institutional concern over the pace and scope of legislative changes currently under discussion in the state congress.
Álvarez Pulido emphasized that the reform process must be decoupled from unrelated political agendas and approached with deliberate analysis. He warned that rushing the legislation could undermine the quality of justice delivery, particularly as the judiciary continues its transition from written to oral proceedings—a shift that demands real-time decision-making and a higher level of practical competence among judges.
Although the judiciary itself submitted a reform proposal earlier this year, Álvarez Pulido clarified that it remains under legislative review and has not been discarded. His call for delay does not signal opposition to reform per se but rather a caution against enacting structural changes without adequate institutional preparation. The judiciary, he argued, must be given time to build internal capacity and ensure that reforms are implemented effectively rather than symbolically.
Rushed reform risks undermining justice quality amid Jalisco’s shift to oral proceedings.
A central issue raised by Álvarez Pulido is the judiciary’s limited budgetary flexibility. While Jalisco’s judiciary receives 2% of the state budget—1.5% for operations and 0.5% for infrastructure—these allocations are rigidly defined, constraining the institution’s ability to reallocate funds toward urgent needs such as hiring additional judges or expanding first-instance courts. The judiciary is not seeking an increase in its overall budget but rather greater autonomy in how existing resources are deployed.
This financial rigidity poses particular challenges as oral proceedings become more prevalent. Unlike written processes, oral trials require judges to make immediate rulings in open court, placing a premium on experience and training. Álvarez Pulido stressed the importance of strengthening the judicial career path to ensure that appointments are based on demonstrated competence rather than theoretical knowledge alone.
His remarks also reflect broader national debates about judicial independence and institutional resilience amid reform pressures. While some observers argue that postponing reform could entrench inefficiencies or delay transparency-enhancing measures, others contend that poorly executed changes risk weakening judicial performance and public trust. The balance between urgency and prudence remains delicate.
There is also a political dimension to timing. Delaying reform until 2026 would move it beyond the current legislative cycle, potentially reducing momentum or altering stakeholder incentives. Yet from an institutional standpoint, such a delay may offer a necessary window for capacity-building and procedural refinement.
As Jalisco’s congress continues to deliberate on the pending proposal, Álvarez Pulido’s intervention underscores the judiciary’s desire to shape—not merely absorb—the trajectory of reform. Whether legislators heed this call for caution will test their commitment to building a justice system grounded in both accountability and operational viability.
