Impeachment in Mexico?

[Simfan34]

So in light of his invitation to-- and, as we now know, subsequent emasculation by-- Donald Trump, some people have been calling for the impeachment of President Enrique Pena Nieto, although almost certainly not on formal charges of having met with Donald Trump. These have been around for a while, and if the Trump episode is the straw that breaks the camel's back, the charges could relate to any number of things, most likely suspicious property deals involving his wife and government contract-winners.

As for the mechanics of the process, which I can't find much information about as all the Google results are-- predictably-- about Brazil, looks convoluted, and seems as if it too many moving parts to work. Or not. It's unclear.

It's technically not an impeachment but a desafuero, which involves stripping an office-holder of their legal immunity after a majority vote in the lower house so that they could be prosecuted (they tried doing this to AMLO in 2005 apparently). However, this only requires a "simple majority", although such terms might mean something different in Mexico than they do here-- as has been the case elsewhere in Latin America recently (i.e., Venezuela, where concepts like absolute majorities and qualified majorities were not being used exactly synonymously to how they are used in the US).

Wikipedia says that according to a "secondary law", if the Chamber of Deputies does vote to remove immunity, the official concerned loses their office immediately-- or is suspended (à la Brazil) during the trial, this isn't clear either. Nor is it clear whether such a law would apply in the case of a President; the wiki article acknowledges that the legal precedent in AMLO's case wasn't clear and that seems to have been such a trainwreck to be in anyway helpful here.

The input of actual Mexicans and Mexico experts (cough, cough, Hashemite) would obviously be useful here. From ag's comments the PAN and PRD are calling for EPN's head while many in the PRI would be happy to see the back of him. If this does require only a simple majority in the Chamber-- where non-government (don't know if I can call them all "opposition") parties already hold a majority of seats-- this might actually happen. But I have no idea what the situation is on the ground.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Actually, meeting with Drumpf for a Mexican President should be considered an act of high treason in and of itself, and as such constitutes ground for impeachment.

[ag]

Ok. Here are the constitutional provisions (basically, the summary of relevant parts of articles 108-111 of the Constitution).

1. The President, while in office, may only be tried for Treason or for Grave Crimes against the Common Order. The latter provision is not very clear (there is no list of such crimes and there is some dispute as to what these may constitute), but, presumably, murder, etc. would be enough.

2. The Chamber of the Deputies can, with a simple majority of members present indict him.

3. The Senate will, in this case, become the trial court, basing itself on the provisions of the penal law currently in force.

4. The Senate may convict with a 2/3 majority vote of members present. The sanction can include removal from office and ban against future public service.

5. Relevant decisions of both chambers may not be appealed against.

In practice, nothing will happen. Peña has been much weakened, and that is, frankly, where most of his opponents want him. I mean, he would be substituted by the Interior Secretary Osorio Chong - the guy both more devious and more corrupt than himself.