Judicial Scandals Rock Quintana Roo’s New Court System

Cancún — The performance of several members of Quintana Roo’s new judiciary has once again become the center of controversy, following a series of allegations ranging from alleged domestic violence and active political party activism to judicial rulings described as serious omissions and contrary to access to justice.

For activists and litigators, this new stage of the judiciary — resulting from the recent “election” process of judges and magistrates — has led to adjudicators whose actions respond more to partisan interests than to principles of judicial independence. The cases of Jonathan Yong, Judge Erika Castillo, Judge Zeidy Stefanny Díaz de la Cruz, and Magistrate Omar Landeros Rosado reflect, according to these sectors, a deep crisis in the administration of justice in the state, aggravated by the arrival of the so-called “Bienestar” judges.

Jonathan Yong, Accused of Domestic Violence

One of the most recent cases is that of Jonathan Yong, a member of the judiciary, publicly accused of an alleged domestic violence episode that occurred in the Residencial Palmaris subdivision in Cancún.

The case generated outrage by involving an official who, due to his position, should guarantee respect for the law and human rights, particularly in a context where gender violence remains a critical problem in Quintana Roo and where, according to activists, “cartilla” judges appear to enjoy institutional protection.

Erika Castillo, Judge Accused of Partisan Activism

Adding to this scenario is Judge Erika Castillo, questioned for carrying out political activities linked to Morena, which has raised doubts about her impartiality.

Various sectors have warned that the active participation of adjudicators in party structures undermines the principle of judicial independence and erodes citizen trust in rulings issued by the courts, fueling the perception of “Bienestar” judges closer to militancy than to the robe.

Zeidy Stefanny Díaz de la Cruz, Decisions That Hinder Access to Justice

One of the most serious cases is that of Judge Zeidy Stefanny Díaz de la Cruz, whose actions have been harshly criticized by activists and legal advisors.

Activist and defender Fabiola Cortés has publicly denounced that, in at least 10 hearings, the accused repeatedly failed to appear without the judge allowing the Prosecutor’s Office to request an arrest warrant in a private hearing, limiting herself to “preserving the rights” of the parties.

The case corresponds to the company Xoanxum, allegedly established through identity theft of an illiterate elderly person, now 92 years old, with which contracts worth approximately 40 million pesos were allegedly obtained for works on Playa del Carmen’s Fifth Avenue during the municipal administration of Laura Beristain.

Litigators consider that Díaz de la Cruz’s promotion — who went from being a Public Ministry assistant to a control judge — reflects a designation process driven from the State Congress and the Government of Quintana Roo, closer to a partisan logic than to an evaluation based on merits.

Omar Landeros Rosado, Rulings That Endorse Questionable Criteria

Criticism also reaches Magistrate Omar Landeros Rosado, who confirmed widely questioned judicial rulings.

In a specific case, a Cancún judge excluded various pieces of evidence on the grounds that it was not specified in the supporting document with which person they would be incorporated, a requirement not provided for in any article of the National Code of Criminal Procedures.

Despite this, Magistrate Landeros Rosado endorsed the determination, which has been interpreted as validation of restrictive criteria foreign to the law, typical of “cartilla” judges who privilege form over substantive rights.

Slate Judges

The designation of local judges and magistrates in Quintana Roo was carried out through a slate mechanism, in which each of the state powers — Executive, Legislative, and Judicial — integrated closed lists of candidacies submitted to a vote without individual profile evaluation, public competitive examinations, or technical appearances.

This method was challenged and subsequently questioned by the Electoral Tribunal of the Federal Judiciary (TEPJF), considering that it violated principles of certainty, legality, and equity by preventing the electorate from identifying and evaluating the specific merits of each candidate. However, the resolution could not be reversed in practice, because the electoral process was already in an advanced phase and there was no material margin or legal time for ballot reprinting, which allowed the slate scheme to remain.

Added to this is that a majority of the elected profiles have backgrounds of militancy, positions, or political links in administrations headed by Morena and the PVEM, which has reinforced allegations about a judicial integration process marked by partisan quotas rather than strictly technical or judicial career criteria.

Underlying Crisis in the Judiciary

These cases, far from being isolated incidents, exhibit a structural problem in Quintana Roo’s judiciary, where activists, lawyers, and citizens warn of a dangerous combination of politicization, lack of professionalism, and decisions that violate human rights.

The accumulation of scandals and controversial rulings has caused growing institutional discredit and reinforced the perception that justice in the state operates under interests foreign to legality and citizen welfare.

Contemplative Judicial Discipline Tribunal

Meanwhile, the Judicial Discipline Tribunal, which also emerged with the reform in the matter and the election of adjudicators, appears not to exist or is a decorative figure.

For now, there is no statement from this body regarding the allegations against new elements of the judiciary.

The members of the Judicial Discipline Tribunal are:

• Lic. Elizabeth Moreno Rejón, Presiding Magistrate, FIRST COMMISSION
• Lic. Nelsy Lucely Trejo Puc, Magistrate, SECOND COMMISSION
• Dr. Marco Antonio Torre Constantino, Magistrate, THIRD COMMISSION