SCJN invalidates sanction in the Aguascalientes Penal Code due to lack of specificity

The Plenary of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation declared unconstitutionality action 94/2025, promoted by the National Human Rights Commission (CNDH), to be admissible and well-founded, and invalidated the normative portion of article 191, second paragraph, of the Penal Code for the State of Aguascalientes that imposed the suspension and disqualification of rights, functions, positions, commissions, jobs, or professions for six months to three years. The sentence was issued by the Plenary Court in its session on March 24, 2026, and is published in the Official Gazette of the Federation number 234/2026, dated Friday, August 28, 2026, in the Judicial Power section, page 103.

The lawsuit was filed on August 27, 2025, by María del Rosario Piedra Ibarra, in her capacity as President of the CNDH, against the reform introduced by Decree Number 239, published in the Official Gazette of the entity on July 28, 2025. The plaintiff pointed out that the challenged portion violates the right to legal certainty and the principles of legality, in its aspect of specificity in criminal matters, and the proportionality of penalties, in relation to articles 14, 16, and 22 of the Constitution, article 9 of the American Convention on Human Rights, and article 15 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The invalidated norm

Article 191 defines attacks on ecological balance in their intentional form and provides for a prison sentence of one to ten years, a fine of five hundred to two thousand days, and full reparation of damages. The portion declared invalid added as an additional sanction the suspension and disqualification of rights, functions, positions, commissions, jobs, or professions for six months to three years.

The Plenary considered that this sanction is neither clear nor precise, as the local legislator does not specify which of those rights, functions, positions, jobs, or professions will be subject to disqualification, nor does it link them to the commission of the crime. The ambiguity could encompass any public or private sphere, including academic, medical, or legal activities unrelated to the offense, leaving the determination of the sanctions to the discretion of the jurisdictional authority.

Decision and effects

The Plenary Court resolved by a unanimous vote of nine:

• To declare the unconstitutionality action admissible and well-founded.
• To invalidate the normative portion “and suspension and disqualification of rights, functions, positions, commissions, jobs, or professions for 6 months to 3 years”.
• To order that the invalidity take retroactive effect as of July 29, 2025, starting from the notification of the resolutive points to the State Congress.
• To publish the resolution in the Official Gazette of the Federation, in the Official Gazette of Aguascalientes, and in the Judicial Weekly of the Federation.

The judgment was signed by the President, Minister Hugo Aguilar Ortiz, and the Rapporteur, Minister Arístides Rodrigo Guerrero García, with the Secretary General of Agreements, Daniel Álvarez Toledo. The decision is based on the precedent of unconstitutionality action 132/2024, resolved on April 21, 2025, which had already invalidated a similar portion of the same article.

Impact

The declaration of invalidity does not eliminate the criminal sanction of the offense, as the penalties of imprisonment, fines, and reparation of damages remain. The ruling reinforces the principle of legality in criminal matters and obliges the Aguascalientes legislator to draft sanctions with precision, guaranteeing the legal certainty of individuals against the exercise of the State’s ius puniendi.

Source: Official Gazette of the Federation, no. 234/2026, August 28, 2026, Judicial Power section, p. 103 (official reference: unconstitutionality action 94/2025).