Argentine Judges Express Concern Over Budget Cuts

The signal coming from Deputies and the Senate, they argue in the courts, will mark the real scope of the political commitment to a justice service that functions, modernizes and remains free from current pressures. The union warns that, in addition to committing to modernization, an adjustment of this magnitude would pressure the salary mass of the judicial system, which amounts to some 22,000 positions in the national and federal justice system. The warning from the appellate judges adds that any procedural transition requires sustained investments in technology, training, and building adaptation, which is impossible to carry out with a cut of the projected magnitude. In parallel, the union led by Julio Piumato (Union of Judicial Employees of the Nation) sent a letter to the president of the Chamber of Deputies, Martín Menem, expressing the same concern. In a document issued after a meeting in Comodoro Rivadavia and headed by appellate judge Javier M. Leal de Ibarra, the magistrates warned that, if the adjustment policy persists, the day-to-day functioning of the courts could be seriously affected, with a direct impact on financial autonomy and, consequently, on judicial independence. The pronouncement emphasizes that budgetary sufficiency is a necessary condition to guarantee an accessible, modern, and efficient justice service. Although the focus of the judges' communication is not on salaries, both approaches converge on one point: the need to review the forecasts to avoid the paralysis of essential services, particularly in criminal and federal courts with high demand. The document of the Board of Presidents was signed by the heads of national and federal chambers across the country—commercial, labor, civil, criminal, economic criminal, administrative litigation, cassation, and provincial federal appellate chambers—reflecting a broad judicial front that transcends jurisdictions and specialties. The judges maintain that 'the constitutional order and the rule of law must prevail over economic circumstances,' and they point out that insufficient allocations lead to inadequate infrastructure, wage deterioration, and greater access barriers for citizens. The budget debate overlaps with another institutional friction point: the postponement, for the second time, of the implementation of the new Federal Criminal Procedure Code in Comodoro Py. The consensus is not minor: for years, the courts have been demanding investments that would allow reducing processing times, digitalizing files, strengthening cybersecurity, and expanding public service, objectives hardly compatible with a 74% reduction in capital goods. The treatment of the 2026 Budget in Congress will be the immediate thermometer of this showdown. While the Executive defends a fiscal balance scheme, the magistrates insist that judicial independence is not a discretionary item but a republican pillar whose erosion has institutional costs greater than accounting savings. Buenos Aires, November 8, 2025 – Total News Agency-TNA-The presidents of federal chambers with criminal jurisdiction expressed 'deep concern' over the 2026 Budget project, which foresees an 8% reduction in the Judiciary's credit and a 74% cut in the 'Capital Goods' item. The Ministry of Justice has now set the date for April 20, 2026, instead of the originally planned November 10, a decision that revived criticism from prosecutors and judges over the impact the delay has on the modernization of the accusatorial system. The cut in 'Capital Goods'—a category that includes, among other concepts, the purchase of computer equipment, building maintenance, and infrastructure works—would compromise the continuity of technological and security improvements, as well as the conservation of buildings where complex and high-impact cases are processed.