Unconstitutionality actions have as its main objective to determine if a norm of ordinary legislation, federal or local, is contrary to the Constitution of Mexico, and at Magna Carta Lex we are in the position to advise diverse state organs that can present them, in regard to its procedural viability and diverse substantial issues.
In contradistinction to the amparo, unconstitutionality actions can only be presented before the Mexican Supreme Court by state organs, which is very important, since it permits those organs to confront organizational issues or give them the capacity for opposing to laws that may violate human rights.
Unconstitutionality actions invalidate the norm declared unconstitutional. Although the text of the unconstitutional norm is not eliminated, hence the norm is not derogated, it does lose its force for being applied.
Constitutional controversies are judicial processes presented before the Mexican Supreme Court as solitary instance, where issues regarding the legality and constitutionality of the functions of state organs, or derived from the division of powers, are solved. At Magna Carta Lex we are in the position to advise the state organs that can present them, in regard to its procedural viability and diverse substantial issues.
There are three general categories of conflicts: those presented between different legal orders, those presented between organs of different legal orders and those presented between organs of the same legal order.
The objective of constitutional controversies is to solve which legal organ is competent. Thus, in the decision must be concluded which was the legal organ that acted in an improper way and outside of its functions, and, therefore, the responsibility will be assigned to the one that has it.