Mexico's Supreme Court Justice Defends 5-Year Cohabitation Rule for Widowhood Pensions

Supreme Court Justice Lenia Batres Guadarrama has defended the five-year cohabitation requirement for accessing widowhood pensions, asserting that the availability of state resources dictates the extent of social security rights. Batres, who refers to herself as the "minister of the people," voted against eliminating this requirement, arguing that it does not infringe upon rights to equality, family, or personal development.

“

Ministers, ministers, some rights, like social security, involve resources, many resources. We can determine extensions of rights here, but if the corresponding entities, in this case, the Congress of the Union, do not guarantee the resources for the extension of those rights, they become dead letters, they become pronouncements or they become rights for some.

During a plenary session on June 4, Batres explained her position, stating that social security rights are intrinsically linked to the state's financial capacity. "Ministers, ministers, some rights, like social security, involve resources, many resources," she argued. "We can determine extensions of rights here, but if the corresponding entities, in this case, the Congress of the Union, do not guarantee the resources for the extension of those rights, they become dead letters, they become pronouncements or they become rights for some."

Batres affirmed her consistent support for the growing recognition of people's rights, particularly in social security. However, she emphasized that such expansions must be implemented in a "reasonable," "extensive," and "progressive" manner, especially when significant resources are involved. She suggested that priority should be given to those most in need, stating, "It seems to me that, in that sense, this type of resolution is not entirely responsible, even though, of course, we must expand social rights, but we must expand them reasonably, extensively, progressively, when it involves a lot of resources, as a priority for those who do not have those resources, require them more urgently or these types of services, because otherwise, we are not doing it in the best way."

“

It seems to me that, in that sense, this type of resolution is not entirely responsible, even though, of course, we must expand social rights, but we must expand them reasonably, extensively, progressively, when it involves a lot of resources, as a priority for those who do not have those resources, require them more urgently or these types of services, because otherwise, we are not doing it in the best way.

The justice also expressed concern that the project proposing the elimination of the five-year rule could be irresponsible. She argued that it "destroys" the concept of cohabitation by potentially granting marriage-like rights to couples regardless of the duration of their relationship, even for as little as one day. Batres believes this approach undermines the established framework for recognizing long-term partnerships as qualifying for social benefits.

“

O, we pass from considering people cohabitants who have had a relationship of five years, to considering practically all of us. We don't need more than a relationship of a couple for a day, two days or whatever we want; in fact, we don't even have to prove it.