The first meanings of outrage that mentions the Royal Spanish Academy (RAE) in their dictionary refer to an action that results opposed to good manners or the law. The term, however, is often used to refer to the act that removes privileges to the one who counted on them.
To understand what the concept of lawlessness refers to, therefore, it is first essential to know what fueros. This is how the prerogatives or the privileges that has an individual for his position.
The assessment is granted by the position that someone occupies, for their functions and / or for a individual condition. When the privileges are withdrawn from the gauge, the lawlessness occurs.
The consequence of the lawlessness, therefore, is that whoever had privileges ceases to have them. The decision to violate the court is usually linked to the presumption of a crime.
At this point it is important to mention that the existence of the fueros is justified by the intention of guarantee autonomy and freedom of a person democratically elected to exercise a public function and represent the people. The fueros allow legislators to develop their work without the interference of sectors that try to make their work impossible and without the influence of others powers.
The charters, in this framework, provide exceptional rights to certain individuals. However, they do not grant impunity. If there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a certified official has committed a crime, lawlessness may occur to override procedural limitations and so judge to the subject in question.
In this context, we cannot fail to mention one of the most prominent cases of lawlessness in recent history, that of Andrés Manuel López Obrador, who is also known as AMLO, the president of Mexico since 2018. This legal process took place between 2004 and 2005, and all data that revolved around it were of great interest to the press and the public.
It all started in 2004, when the government of the Mexico City, which in the past was known as federal District, was accused of failing to comply with a court order according to which the construction of a street should be stopped on land that had been expropriated by other governments. Although the order was finally respected, it was not done immediately and the responsibility it fell entirely on López Obrador.
Since 2000, López Obrador was head of government, and that is why he had legal immunity, more precisely with parliamentary jurisdiction, that is, the prerogative of those who are part of a legislative group that provides them immunity partial in case of trial unless they are of a constitutional nature. In other words, he could not be subjected to a criminal or administrative process unless determined to do so by the Congress of the Union.
Next, the federal government with the then president Vicente Fox Quesada At the head, he requested the violation for the Congress of the Union, with the aim that López Obrador could be subjected to a trial in which the affair. Public opinion soon reached the media, and the majority pointed out that it was a political maneuver to prevent López Obrador from running for president in 2006.
For a time, both parties Institutional Revolutionary Y National Action as the federal government upheld their decision claiming that they pursued legality first and foremost. The closing of the process of lawlessness took place on April 7, 2005, and led to massive protests against him. Finally, Vicente Fox publicly announced that they would stop his legal actions.