Mexico City | Desinformémonos. The locations that the federal government “arbitrarily designated” to consult the Tének and Huasteca populations on the “erroneously termed the General Law on the Rights of Indigenous and Afro-Mexican Peoples” effectively exclude 246 communities listed in the National Catalog of Indigenous and Afro-Mexican Peoples and Communities, according to a complaint by National Indigenous Councilors.
The council members, who represent San Luis Potosí before the National Council of Indigenous Peoples, issued a public letter expressing their “total rejection” of the bill and “the sham indigenous consultation intended to endorse said document.”
“Our position stems from the technical unfeasibility and substantive setbacks contained in the aforementioned document, as well as the serious procedural flaws with which the National Institute of Indigenous Peoples (INPI) and the Federal Executive are attempting to simulate the process of Free, Prior, and Informed Consultation,” they explained.
Regarding the polling locations, they alleged that the government chose the municipalities of Ciudad Valles and Tamazunchale even though this excludes nearly 250 communities and affects 98,911 indigenous language speakers, which “constitutes an economic and logistical barrier (the INPI does not cover transportation costs) that excludes more than 11 municipalities,” such as Tancanhuitz, Coxcatlán, Aquismón, Huehuetlán, San Antonio, Tanlajás, Tampamolón, San Vicente Tancuayalab, Tanquián, Axtla, and Xilitla. This, they added, “openly” violates the Memorandum of Understanding signed on July 10, 2026, in which it was formally agreed that the “suitable and strategic” location was the municipality of Tancanhuitz.
The council members also rejected the concept of “Regional Assemblies” imposed by the INPI, as this concept does not exist in the communities’ internal regulatory systems or in Article 2 of the Constitution, since the highest deliberative authority is the General Community Assembly.
“Limiting representation to just two delegates fragments, supplants, and restricts the direct exercise of our autonomy. We caution that attendance records do not, under any circumstances, constitute consent to or endorsement of the document,” they criticized.
Among the “procedural flaws and institutional pretense” of the consultation, they also cited the stigmatization, criminalization, and exclusion they face as National Councilors and their community leaders, who have openly expressed their opposition to the use of social programs “for political purposes,” to the “Pánuco–Cerro Prieto Aqueduct” project, and to the extraction of hydrocarbons through fracking.
The representatives added that their “lack of consent and categorical rejection” of the proposed regulation is also “because it represents an unconstitutional step backward, a return to state-imposed indigenism, and absolute technical unfeasibility.” Among the examples they cited were the bureaucratization of indigenous recognition by making legal personality as a subject of public law contingent upon rulings, registries, or resolutions from the INPI or the Ministry of the Interior; and the elimination of terms such as “territory,” which paves the way for dispossession.
In light of the irregularities and “flaws,” the council members demanded the immediate withdrawal of the working document for the General Law; the restructuring of the participatory process to respect the General Community Assemblies as the highest deliberative authority and to guarantee “culturally appropriate methodologies, realistic timelines, and suitable venues”; and the establishment of a face-to-face, direct working group between the legitimate representatives of the peoples, the Office of the President of the Republic, the Congress of the Union, and the General Directorate of the INPI “to develop, from the grassroots up, sector-specific and technically viable regulatory initiatives that guarantee territorial ownership, genuine autonomy, and direct funding.”
The full letter follows:
OPEN LETTER TO THE PRESIDENCY OF THE REPUBLIC
TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED MEXICAN STATES, DR. CLAUDIA SHEINBAUM PARDO.
TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNION AND THE COMMITTEES ON INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
TO THE PEOPLE OF MEXICO AND THE PUBLIC
PRESENT.
We, the undersigned—Indigenous National Councilors representing the State of San Luis Potosí before the National Council of Indigenous Peoples—in full exercise of our rights to autonomy, self-determination, and substantive participation, as recognized in Articles 1, 2, and 8 (Right to Petition) of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States, ILO Convention No. 169, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and the Law of the National Institute of Indigenous Peoples, address you to make public our position of NON-CONSENT, OUR TOTAL REJECTION OF THE WORKING DOCUMENT MISLABELED AS THE “DRAFT GENERAL LAW ON THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS AND AFROMEXICAN PEOPLES” AND OF THE SHAM INDIGENOUS CONSULTATION INTENDED TO ENDORSE SAID DOCUMENT.
Our position stems from the technical unfeasibility and substantive setbacks contained in the aforementioned document, as well as the serious procedural flaws with which the National Institute of Indigenous Peoples (INPI) and the Federal Executive are attempting to simulate the process of Free, Prior, and Informed Consultation.
I. ALLEGATIONS OF PROCEDURAL FAULTS AND INSTITUTIONAL SIMULATION IN THE CONSULTATION
We hereby document the serious anomalies that invalidate this process from its very inception by violating the principles of good faith, prior information, and cultural relevance:
• The INPI has imposed dates, methodologies, and hastily issued calls for participation—without a signature or visible point of contact—limiting itself to distributing booklets without explaining or culturally translating the scope of the proposed document.
• Through the Agreement of July 22, 2026, the Federal Government arbitrarily designated the municipalities of Ciudad Valles and Tamazunchale as the headquarters for the Tének and Huasteca populations. These designated locations effectively exclude 246 communities listed in the National Catalog of Indigenous and Afro-Mexican Peoples and Communities—and affect 98,911 indigenous language speakers aged 3 and older. This decision constitutes an economic and logistical barrier (the INPI does not cover travel expenses) that excludes more than 11 municipalities (including Tancanhuitz, Coxcatlán, Aquismón, Huehuetlán, San Antonio, Tanlajás, Tampamolón, San Vicente Tancuayalab, Tanquián, Axtla, and Xilitla), openly violating the Memorandum of Understanding signed on July 10, 2026, in which it was formally agreed that the most suitable and strategic location was the municipality of Tancanhuitz.
The Ciudad Valles site would encompass 294 communities, representing 54.24% of the state’s total indigenous communities. The Tamazunchale site would cover 40.40%, and the Santa María Acapulco site would comprise 5.16%; this leaves the communities located in the state capital without a designated site, which is why our objection is so important.
• We reject the concept of “Regional Assemblies” imposed by the INPI. This concept does not exist in our internal regulatory systems or in Article 2 of the Constitution. Our highest deliberative authority is the Community General Assembly. Limiting representation to only two delegates fragments, supplants, and restricts the direct exercise of our autonomy. We caution that attendance records do not, under any circumstances, constitute consent to or endorsement of the document.
• We denounce the stigmatization, criminalization, and exclusion to which we, as National Councilors and our community leaders, are subjected due to our open opposition to the use of social programs for political purposes, to the “Pánuco–Cerro Prieto Aqueduct” project, and to the extraction of hydrocarbons through fracking. Furthermore, we denounce the use of the public radio station XEANT “La Voz de las Huastecas” to spread misinformation and impose the government’s narrative.
II. REGULATORY CORE: TECHNICAL UNFEASIBILITY AND SUBSTANTIVE SETBACKS
We express our NON-CONSENT AND CATEGORICAL REJECTION of the regulatory proposal, as it represents an unconstitutional step backward, a return to state-sanctioned indigenism, and absolute technical unfeasibility:
• Technical Unfeasibility Due to Regulatory Overreach. The document consists of 453 articles and 11 transitional provisions that erroneously mix more than 30 disparate subjects (territory, the electoral system, the economy, traditional medicine, water resources, among others). From a legal technical standpoint, the Executive Branch should have drafted specific regulatory laws; this amalgamation renders the legislation confusing, inoperative, and unenforceable.
• Bureaucratization of Original Recognition (Art. 19 and 20). Making legal personality as a subject of public law contingent upon opinions, registries, or resolutions issued by the INPI or SEGOB violates the principle of self-identification. Our existence predates the Mexican State; the authority merely recognizes it—it neither grants it nor safeguards it through administrative catalogs.
• Territorial Dispossession and Omission of Article 27. We reject the bill’s elimination of the legal term “territory” (replacing it with “places” or “preferential right”) in order to avoid amending Article 27 of the Constitution or secondary extractive legislation (water, mining, forestry, and the USMCA). We do not consent to energy megaprojects such as fracking or the “Pánuco–Cerro Prieto Aqueduct,” which endanger life, water, and biodiversity.
Unconstitutionality of “Public Utility.” The proposal reduces public consultation to a mere formality in which community dissent is intended to be resolved through monetary compensation on the grounds of “public utility.” According to the criteria of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the general interest or public utility cannot take precedence over the existence, cultural survival, and territorial integrity of indigenous peoples.
• Subordination of Community Justice and the “Folklorization” of Culture. The bill subjects the judicial rulings of our authorities to review and annulment by ordinary courts (Art. 59 and 61), thereby destroying legal pluralism and multicultural justice. At the same time, it commodifies cultural heritage (Art. 154–159) by subjecting ancestral knowledge to registration requirements and market exceptions.
• Budgetary Restrictions. Making the direct allocation of resources contingent on “budgetary availability” in the transitional provisions strips the mandate of fiscal autonomy enshrined in the Constitution of its substantive content.
• Failure to respect the human rights of indigenous peoples, as they are excluded because the institutional mechanisms that would allow for greater participation by men, women, youth, older adults, people of diverse sexual orientations, people with disabilities, as well as children and adolescents, are not taken into account on an issue that affects their lives.
III. DEMANDS.
In light of the fundamental flaws and the ineffectiveness of the proposed text, the representatives of the Nahuatl and Tének peoples of San Luis Potosí, based on Articles 1, 2, and 8 of the Constitution, request and demand the following:
1. The immediate withdrawal of the working document for the General Law due to its technical invalidity and regressive nature, as well as the annulment of the consultation process carried out through the “Regional Assemblies” for violating the constitutional and international standard of Prior, Free, Informed, and Good-Faith Consultation.
2. That the participatory process be restructured, respecting the General Community Assemblies as the highest deliberative authority, and guaranteeing culturally appropriate methodologies, realistic timelines, and suitable venues (restoring the formal commitment to hold the meeting in Tancanhuitz for the Huasteca region).
3. The establishment of a face-to-face working group involving the legitimate representatives of the peoples, the Office of the President of the Republic, the Congress of the Union, and the General Directorate of the INPI to develop, from the grassroots level, sector-specific and technically viable regulatory initiatives that guarantee territorial ownership, genuine autonomy, and direct funding.
4. The immediate suspension of the use of public media outlets such as XEANT “La Voz de las Huastecas” to spread misinformation; the cessation of the imposition of conditions on social programs; and an audit of the management of local officials from the INPI and the Secretariat of Welfare in San Luis Potosí for acts contrary to indigenous rights.
Pursuant to Article 8 of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States, we formally request that the authorities to whom this petition is addressed issue a written response to this petition. For the purposes of exercising our right to petition, we designate the following address as our official address for receiving all types of notifications, documents, and responses arising from this Open Letter: Community of La Garza, Municipality of Tancanhuitz, ZIP Code 79800, Phone: 481 117 3409. Furthermore, we jointly and severally designate and authorize Mr. Rafael Reyes Martínez to, on our behalf and in our representation, receive, acknowledge receipt of, appear in response to, and take note of any formal notification or official communication issued by the relevant authorities.
We look forward to receiving a written response in a timely manner, in accordance with the constitutional mandate.
Issued in the state of San Luis Potosí, on September 3, 2026.
NATIONAL INDIGENOUS COUNCIL MEMBERS OF THE STATE OF SAN LUIS POTOSÍ
FOR THE EXERCISE OF AUTONOMY AND SELF-DETERMINATION
C. Angelina Reyes Hernández, C. Hermelinda Vázquez Bautista
Nahua Representatives. C. Cenorina Bernal Fernández, C. Rafael Reyes Martínez, C. Marcos Alejo Torres, Tének Representatives
Original text published by Desinformémonos on September 4th, 2026.
Translation by Schools for Chiapas.