Locals Fight Cruise Giant’s Mahahual Project

CHETUMAL — The non-governmental organization Defending the Right to a Healthy Environment (Dmas) has announced it is challenging a decision by the First District Court in Chetumal that dismissed three injunctions filed by residents of Mahahual. The legal actions sought to contest a change in land use for the Perfect Day Mexico project, a private tourist complex promoted by the American shipping company Royal Caribbean on the Costa Maya of Quintana Roo.

The group stated that in January it provided legal support to six Mahahual residents to file the injunctions against the modification of land use parameters. Those modifications were approved by the Othón P. Blanco city council and state authorities to allow the project's development.

The three injunctions were dismissed by Judge Eugenia Maritza Valencia Hernández, who was recently elected with the government's support. Dmas contends that the judge applied contradictory legal criteria in her decisions.

In response, Dmas has challenged the resolutions so they may be reviewed by a collegiate court. The matter has been referred to the First Collegiate Circuit Court. That court is currently composed only of Magistrate Aarón Alberto Pereira Lizama and Lina Victoria Bolio Pasos, who were also elected with the favor of the "accordion." A third position is occupied by the secretary of the court, María Teresa Rodríguez Cárdenas, who is acting as magistrate because the seat is vacant following the retirement of its head, Teddy Abraham Torres López.

The court will now determine whether to review the challenges. This process holds the possibility of guaranteeing access to justice for the citizens of Mahahual to defend their right to a healthy environment, citizen participation, and decent housing. Dmas raised the question: "Will the citizens be allowed to defend their territory before the federal courts?"

At the beginning of February, the Salvemos Mahahual and Dmas collectives denounced that Judge Valencia Hernández refused to admit the three injunctions. They accused her of contradictions by applying different legal criteria to the same act of authority.

According to Dmas representatives, in the first injunction the judge considered the modification to the Urban Development Program (PDU) an administrative act. Under the Amparo Law, this implies a period of 15 days to challenge it, counted from the moment the affected people become aware of the act. Under that criterion, the moment the community learned about the real effects of the PDU change was a key element.

However, the groups pointed out that in the second and third injunctions the judge changed her own criteria. She then treated the same PDU modification as if it were a law, not an administrative act, applying a period of 30 days counted from its official publication. Setting December 5 as the starting point, she again rejected the lawsuits.

With this change, the judge no longer took into account the moment when the community became aware of the document's content and consequences, even though that factor had been decisive in the previous ruling.

The groups stated that this action represents a serious legal contradiction, arguing that the same act cannot change its legal nature depending on the case. They assert this affects legal certainty and access to justice.