## Facts

- José Melgar Castillejos’s daughter filed a civil action seeking his involuntary confinement and a declaration of mental incompetency (interdicción).
- Before any trial on the merits, a family court applied the prejudgment procedure in Article 904 of the Federal District Code of Civil Procedure (CPCDF).
- Acting under Article 904, the court issued an interlocutory detention order against Melgar Castillejos, appointed a guardian, and seized or placed his assets under control.
- Although Mexican law contemplated later proceedings on the merits, the Article 904 procedure did not give Melgar Castillejos a prior opportunity to appear, contest the allegations, or offer proof of lucidity/competency before the interim measures took effect.
- Melgar Castillejos filed an amparo (writ of protection) against acts of the President of the Republic and other authorities tied to the issuance and application of CPCDF Articles 902 (second paragraph), 904, and 905.
- A federal district judge granted amparo, reasoning that Article 904’s mechanism presumed incapacity without adequate support and denied the affected person the chance to speak, defend himself, and prove competency; the judge ordered the confinement order withdrawn and treated the Article 904 procedure as unconstitutional.
- Melgar Castillejos’s daughter sought review but later attempted to withdraw the appeal at his request.
- Despite the attempted withdrawal, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN), sitting en banc (Pleno), proceeded to address the constitutionality of Article 904 in light of arguments urging its validation by the President of the Republic.
- The SCJN decided the matter on November 29, 1999, by a 7–3 vote (Justice Mariano Azuela Güitrón writing; one justice absent).

## Issues

1. Whether CPCDF Article 904(I) violates Article 14 of the Mexican Constitution by allowing a person to be deprived of the administration of property and the exercise of civil rights (and subjected to detention/guardianship measures) without a prior opportunity to be heard and to prove lucidity.
2. Whether the SCJN could still rule on the constitutional question after the private-party appellant attempted to withdraw the request for review, given the continuing defense of the challenged provision’s validity by federal authorities.
3. Whether amparo relief may invalidate the prejudgment interdiction mechanism in Article 904(I) (as applied and/or as a rule) when its immediate effects are equivalent to a final deprivation of rights.

## Decision

- The SCJN held that the interdiction procedure in CPCDF Article 904, fraction I, was unconstitutional to the extent it allowed severe, immediate restrictions—loss of property administration and the exercise of rights—without giving the alleged incompetent an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence of lucidity.
- The Court maintained the essential amparo relief protecting Melgar Castillejos from the ex parte application of Article 904(I), including withdrawal of the confinement order and rejection of the prejudgment mechanism used against him.
- The Court proceeded to resolve the constitutional question notwithstanding the attempted withdrawal of the appeal, addressing the arguments presented in defense of Article 904’s constitutionality.
- The decision was adopted by a majority of seven justices, with three dissents.

## Legal Principles

- Article 14 of the Mexican Constitution requires a meaningful opportunity to be heard before the state may impose judicial measures that deprive a person of liberty, property control, or the exercise of civil rights.
- Civil procedures labeled “interim” or “prejudgment” must still satisfy the guarantee of a hearing when their immediate consequences effectively strip a person of legal agency, property administration, or basic civil participation.
- A statutory scheme that presumes incapacity and authorizes ex parte measures based on unilateral submissions—without allowing the affected person to contest the claim and offer proof of lucidity—fails constitutional due process requirements.
- Amparo review can invalidate the use of civil-procedure provisions that permit constitutionally defective pre-hearing deprivations, even where a later merits proceeding is theoretically available.

## Conclusion

In Amparo en Revisión 579/99, the SCJN ruled that CPCDF Article 904(I)’s prejudgment interdiction process was unconstitutional because it allowed detention, guardianship, and asset-control measures that deprived a presumed incompetent of rights and property administration without a prior hearing and a chance to prove lucidity, and it upheld amparo relief for José Melgar Castillejos despite the attempted withdrawal of the appeal.


José Melgar Castillejos v. Pres. of the Republic, Writ of Protection on Appeal Amp. Rev. 579/99 (1999)