Bárbara Zamora
La Jornada
January 29, 1988

Recently, the Secretary of Defence has been saying that the army in Chiapas is applying the Federal Law for Arms and Explosives, and that "the application of the law can't be particular, nor can it have exceptions".

It should be remembered that the application of laws, whether in the federal or state sphere, is exclusively reserved for civil authorities, as established in article 21 of our Magna Carta, which states: "...the pursuit of crimes is the responsibility of the Public Prosecutor and the Judicial Police, who will be under the authority and immediate control of the former...". Similarly, article 102 indicates in relation to federal matters: "It is the responsibility of the Federal Public Prosecutor to pursue all federal crimes in the courts; similarly, it is his responsibility to request arrest warrents for suspects...".

It can be inferred from these extracts that the pursuit of all crimes is the responsibility of the Public Prosecutor, whether it be in the federal or state jurisdiction, and never the responsibility of the army. That is why the application of the Federal Law for Arms and Explosives being carried out by the federal army, and so vehemently defended by the Secretary of Defence, is a clear violation of previous constitutional precepts. They are now using this pretext to justify their unconstitutional presence in Zapatista communities and ejidos. The earlier excuse that they were fighting narco-trafficking has begun to wear rather thin given that some of their own commanders have been publicly implicated in these crimes.

If the law really were to be applied without exception, the federal army would be the first to respect the constitution and withdraw from Chiapas and any other state in the country where it is carrying out activities that are not within its jurisdiction. Giving out "food, medicines and medical advice" and applying laws like the one about arms and explosives are activities that the federal army is carrying out in fact, because in law they no right to do so.

It is also fitting here to remember that article 129 of the constitution establishes: "In peace time, no military authority can carry out functions other than those directly related to military discipline. It will only have fixed and permanent military commands in castles, fortresses and stores that are direct dependencies of the government of the Union; or in the camps, barracks or depots that it establishes for the stationing of its troops, outside populated areas".

In January 1857, when article 129 of the constitution was being debated, Ponciano Arriaga, referring specifically to the command posts, said: "How easy and how dangerous the temptation to abuse military power, even when governed by a moral code, or motivated by a true spirit of honour, subordination and obedience; there is no need to illustrate this with all the misfortunes of our country when more civilized nations have already judged it to be incompatible with a peaceful and true freedom...".

This affirmation has come true in the light of the facts and the declarations of the Secretary of Defence. It is very serious and dangerous that the army has no kind of limitation on its declarations or actions, and that the high military command does not subject itself to the rules of the constitution. The army should return to its barracks because the abuse of military power seems to have become more than just a temptation.