A constitutional amendment was published in Mexico’s Diario Oficial de la Federación that dissolved the National Institute for Transparency, Access to Information, and Personal Data Protection (INAI)—the autonomous body historically tasked with safeguarding the public’s right to access information and ensuring data privacy. This institutional shift marked the end of over two decades of efforts to build an independent oversight entity.
Subsequently, on March 20, 2025, a new legal framework was enacted via the same official publication, including three new statutes:
- The General Law on Transparency and Access to Public Information
- The General Law on the Protection of Personal Data Held by Obligated Subjects
- The Federal Law on the Protection of Personal Data Held by Private Parties
These laws formalized the replacement of the INAI with a new entity: the Secretariat of Anti-Corruption and Good Governance. This transition has triggered significant public debate, particularly around concerns of increased executive influence over transparency and data oversight.
From Constitutional Autonomy to Executive Oversight
Prior to the reform, the INAI functioned as an independent constitutional body with full technical and operational autonomy. It could resolve appeals regarding access to public information and data protection violations, both in the public and private sectors. Crucially, it had standing to file constitutional controversies and actions of unconstitutionality powerful legal tools for challenging laws or actions that infringed constitutional rights.
The new structure, however, transfers authority to the Secretariat of Anti-Corruption, a centralized federal executive agency. This body will operate through specialized administrative units for both public and private sector data protection, and through a decentralized agency called Transparencia para el Pueblo, which will handle matters of public information access.
Unlike INAI, this new setup lacks constitutional autonomy and falls directly under the executive branch, specifically the President. As a result, decisions issued by these new bodies could be challenged through administrative annulment proceedings, although the implications of such subordination raise concerns about impartiality and effectiveness.
The distinction is not trivial. Autonomous constitutional bodies (OCAs) operate independently from the executive, sometimes being referred to as a “fourth branch of government” in Mexican legal scholarship. Their disappearance not only restructures oversight but narrows the legal paths available for challenging transparency and data decisions.
Changes to Legal Remedies: Amparo as the Dominant Tool
The overhaul of transparency and data protection laws introduces several significant shifts in how citizens and entities can challenge government decisions:
a) Specialized Courts and Judges
The March 2025 decree establishes new courts and tribunals dedicated to access to information and data protection. While this specialization is promising for more nuanced judicial decisions, it comes with a downside: a 180-day suspension of procedural timelines for amparo proceedings, effectively freezing access to justice in these areas for at least six months.
b) Amendments to the General Transparency Law (LGTAI)
Under the revised LGTAI, if a request for public information is denied, individuals can still file a review with the relevant transparency unit. However, appeal options have been narrowed. The new law restricts challenges to cases involving federal public funds, removing the broader review scope previously available under the INAI.
c) Changes to the General Law on Data Held by Public Bodies (LGPDPSO)
The new law authorizes both the Secretariat of Anti-Corruption and local transparency bodies to handle appeals concerning ARCO rights (Access, Rectification, Cancellation, and Opposition). However, it eliminates the option to file an inconformidad (disagreement appeal) against these resolutions—a critical remedy that had allowed challenges to reach the INAI before heading to federal court. The INAI’s discretionary power to take up cases of public significance has also been abolished. Now, the sole legal path post-review is an amparo suit.
d) The New Federal Law for Private Data Holders (LFPDPPP)
Perhaps the starkest shift lies here. While the prior version allowed juicio de nulidad (nullity trials) to challenge INAI decisions, the Supreme Court had already signaled that amparo was the appropriate route for such appeals, recognizing the INAI’s constitutional autonomy. Now, with that autonomy gone, the new law clearly states that individuals must pursue amparo against decisions from the Secretariat of Anti-Corruption—formally cementing this route as the mainstay for legal defense.
Final Reflections: Toward a More Judicialized System
The reforms have pushed Mexico toward a more judicialized model of rights protection, with amparo emerging as the dominant legal safeguard. While this may strengthen constitutional protections in theory, the suppression of other administrative and quasi-judicial remedies poses new challenges.
Among the most pressing concerns are:
- The risk of overburdening newly created courts
- Uncertainty caused by vague legislative drafting (e.g., the use of permissive language like “may” instead of “shall”)
- Reduced legal accessibility for citizens seeking timely resolution
Only time will reveal whether the amparo mechanism can carry the full weight of defending transparency and privacy rights in a centralized governance model. What is clear for now is that the path to enforce these rights has been narrowed, and the burden of protection increasingly rests on the judiciary.
