## Facts

- The Municipality of Río Bravo, Tamaulipas brought a *controversia constitucional* before Mexico’s Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) under Article 105 of the federal Constitution.
- Río Bravo challenged **Article 91(II) of the Constitution of Tamaulipas**, which granted the state Governor authority to appoint and freely remove municipal police chiefs.
- Relying on that asserted authority, the Governor appointed state-designated public-safety officials for Río Bravo, including a **Public Safety Delegate** and a **First Commander**.
- State authorities also assumed control over the **Municipal Police**, displacing municipal control over public security functions.
- In connection with those events, the state initiated a **preliminary investigation** regarding alleged usurpation and abuse of authority by municipal public-safety officials.
- Río Bravo argued that both (a) the state constitutional provision and (b) the Governor’s concrete appointments and takeover invaded the municipality’s federally protected powers under **Article 115** of the Mexican Constitution, which assigns municipalities responsibility for public services including public security, and limits the Governor’s command of the public force to municipalities where the Governor resides habitually or temporarily.
- The Governor argued that appointing a police chief (and related command structure) could be separated from the municipality’s general administration of public security, so the state constitutional provision did not conflict with Article 115.

## Issues

1. Whether Article 91(II) of the Tamaulipas Constitution, authorizing the Governor to appoint and remove municipal police chiefs, is unconstitutional under Article 115 of the federal Constitution.
2. Whether the Governor’s appointment of a Public Safety Delegate and First Commander for Río Bravo—and the resulting assumption of control over the Municipal Police—violated Article 115 when Río Bravo was not a municipality where the Governor resided habitually or temporarily.

## Decision

- The SCJN **did not invalidate** Article 91(II) of the Tamaulipas Constitution on its face in this constitutional controversy.
- The SCJN **invalidated the challenged acts of application**, annulling the Governor’s appointments of the Public Safety Delegate and First Commander for Río Bravo and rejecting the state’s takeover of the Municipal Police as inconsistent with Article 115’s allocation of municipal responsibility for public security and its limits on executive command of the public force.
- The Court’s relief therefore **partly granted** the municipality’s claim: the state constitutional text remained in effect, but the concrete interventions in Río Bravo were void.

## Legal Principles

- Article 115 of the federal Constitution places **primary responsibility for public security services** with municipalities, subject to limited constitutional exceptions.
- The Governor’s **command of the public force** is constitutionally tied to the municipality where the Governor **resides habitually or temporarily**; absent that condition (or another constitutionally authorized basis), the state cannot displace municipal control through executive appointments or operational takeover.
- In a *controversia constitucional*, the SCJN may **deny facial invalidation** of a challenged state norm yet still **annul specific acts** taken under that norm when those acts exceed federal constitutional limits.
- Labels such as “appointment” versus “administration” do not control when the state action, in practice, transfers control of municipal public security away from the municipality beyond what Article 115 permits.

## Conclusion

In *Municipality of Rio Bravo v. the Governor of Tamaulipas*, the SCJN protected municipal authority under Article 115 by voiding the Governor’s specific appointments and the state’s assumption of control over Río Bravo’s Municipal Police, while leaving the Tamaulipas constitutional provision on gubernatorial appointment power formally in place because the case warranted relief against the concrete acts rather than the state constitutional text itself.


Municipality of Rio Bravo v. the Governor of Tamaulipas, Constitutional Controversy 19/95 Contr. Const. 19/95 (1996)