The Telephone Operators Union, exercising its right of reply, issued a response to the note published in this newspaper on 25 January. Below is the full text of the letter sent to this newspaper by telephone union leader Francisco Hernandez Juarez:
The response of Francisco Hernández Juárez, Secretary General of the Union of Telephone Operators of the Mexican Republic.
Through this channel, I would like to extend my warmest greetings to you and in exercise of our right of reply in respect of a note issued by your media outlet on 25th January, request the publication of this clarification on your website with the following url am: https://www.jornada.com.mx/notas/2023/01/25/sociedad/niegan-amparo-a-telefonistas-contra-omision-federal-de-emitir-politica-digital/ and on January 26 Printed version on page 15, titled: Telephone operators denied protection against federal default to issue digital policy.
With all due respect, first of all, the title of the note does not correspond to the content, since the reporter who signed it, César Arellano García, refers only to the fact that the presiding judge of the Seventeenth District Court in Administrative Affairs denied the complaint The suspension is provisional for the serving party whom I am honored to represent.
It should be noted that the grant of amparo and protection of federal justice in favor of the complainants in this case is indirectly the result of a decision on the merits in the amparo test. In other words, Amparo Law sets out the procedure within which it considers various steps, resources and procedural events. Suspensions, both provisional and final, are an incidental part of the trial. Granting or not granting suspension does not predetermine the final outcome of the trial, i.e. the decision on merits.
For this reason, I dare to affirm that whoever edited the reference note distorts reality, is untrue and misinforms its readers, since in fact the amparo was not rejected , Rather it was a temporary suspension.
Secondly, the reporter refers to amparo as a resource on at least two occasions, when the law is very clear: it is a trial, within which resources such as complaints or reviews can be promoted on a case by case basis.
Third, the note misinforms, stating in its fifth paragraph that the judge also “denied a precautionary measure to integrate said policy into the National Development Plan of Compulsory Compliance for the Federal Public Administration,” because it lacked clear, affordable and the measurable objectives of programs and strategies aimed at providing access to information and communication technologies, including broadband Internet, to the entire population, formulating and operating a universal digital inclusion policy as well as its integration into the national development plan in accordance with Article 36 With the provisions of, section I bis of the Organic Law of the Federal Public Administration”, with a wording that indicates that the preceding italic is an argument of the judge, when it is part of the argument that we use to underline The importance is, firstly, of complying with the constitutional obligations of the issued federal executive to support this public policy and secondly, of integrating it into the national development plan which in this case lacks objectives.
Any editor can realize that Amparo’s trial is not over with the denial of provisional suspension if they read the last paragraph of the note which indicates that the judge has set a contingency hearing (suspension) for 31st of next January. event of) is determined.
To all of the above, I ask you to publish this clarification in the same places where the note was published, which we believe contains incomplete and distorted information about what actually happens in this case: Claim The omission committed violates the fundamental right to connectivity and access to digital networks for the benefit of the community, especially the most disadvantaged sectors.
Francisco Hernandez Juarez
General Secretary
national executive committee
Union of Telephone Operators of the Mexican Republic.
On January 25, the following note was published in this newspaper: “Telephone operators denied protection against federal default for issuing digital policy”, the text of which is displayed below
The Seventeenth District Court for Administrative Affairs in Mexico City denied a temporary suspension to the Federation of Telephone Operators of the Mexican Republic, led by Francisco Hernández Juárez, that called on the federal government to issue a universal digital inclusion policy. was against the default, as ordered. Constitution.
The union promoted the amparo appeal on January 23 before Judge Celina Quintero Rico, who accepted the appeal for processing. The claimed task is to formulate and operate a universal digital inclusion policy as well as integration into the national development plan, in accordance with the provisions of Article 36, Clause I Bis of the Federal Public Administration’s Organic Law, and others. ,
“Provisional suspension is denied with respect to the claimed acts of omission of the authorities responsible for issuing the Universal Digital Inclusion Policy pursuant to the mandate contained in Section I, Article 6, of Section B of the Constitution,” indicated the judge’s agreement. does.
The said clause indicates that the State shall guarantee information to the population and its integration into the knowledge society through a universal digital inclusion policy with annual and six-year targets.
It also refused a precautionary measure to integrate the said policy into the National Development Plan of mandatory adherence to the federal public administration, “as it lacks clear, affordable and measurable objectives aimed at providing access to information and communication technologies.” , lacks programs and strategies, failure to develop and operationalize a universal digital inclusion policy, including broadband internet for the entire population, as well as its integration into the national development plan, in accordance with the provisions of Article 36, clause of the Federal Organic Law I Bis Public Administration”.
The judge next set an emergency hearing for January 31 at 11 a.m., where she will determine whether to grant a definitive suspension to the telephone union. Similarly, it asked the responsible officials to submit their prior reports on the alleged acts.
