Senator Noroña Downplays Court Order for Apology Over Gender Violence Allegations

Senator Gerardo Fernández Noroña has dismissed a ruling by the Electoral Tribunal of Michoacán that mandated him to issue a public apology to Uruapan municipal president Grecia Quiroz for political gender-based violence. Noroña characterized the decision as mere political maneuvering and stated his intention to appeal.

“

It is not a firm sentence, so I will appeal it again.

Noroña asserted that the tribunal failed to adhere to the regional court's precedent, which he believes supports his statements against the mayor under the principle of parliamentary immunity. He argued that the tribunal's interpretation of his actions, particularly those made on social media, is inaccurate and that his right to freedom of expression as a legislator should be upheld.

“

The regional court had already stated the criteria, and the tribunal decided not to respect it. I don't have a major problem because the sentence is simply political maneuvering.

The senator contended that the tribunal's reasoning is absurd, questioning whether his parliamentary immunity ceases to apply the moment he leaves the legislative chamber. He believes the constitution does not impose such restrictions on his freedom of speech, despite ongoing national debates about the potential misuse of legislative immunity.

“

They are stating falsehoods, because I made them (the statements) in the plenary session, like now, and then when I do my video chat, I comment on what happened in the plenary session.

Fernández Noroña views this case as part of a broader political campaign against him, aimed at creating the impression that he is facing sanctions. He maintains that he has not been sanctioned and that the current ruling is an attempt to discredit him politically.

“

But furthermore, the criterion that the electoral tribunal intends, that I, as a senator, cease to be a senator as soon as I cross that door, is absurd. And if I go to a debate on the radio, do I stop being a senator? And if what I say in that debate can no longer be covered by freedom of expression that parliamentary immunity provides? They are proposing absurdities.