11 June 2026 – Guest blog by Vania Pérez Morales, Coordinator of the Corruption Whistleblower Working Group in Mexico, Former President of the National Anti-Corruption System, Director for Mexico and Central America at the Latin American Center for Law and Social Studies
Corruption whistleblowers in Mexico face an endemic obstacle when speaking up about corruption: the fear of filing complaints without protection, and without minimum safeguards for those who decide to come forward, there can be no real fight against corruption.
Over the past several years, one of the most persistent concerns within Mexico’s National Anti-Corruption System has been the lack of effective mechanisms for filing complaints regarding acts of corruption and, above all, the absence of a national protection framework for those who dare to do so. The reason many people do not file complaints is because they are afraid. They are afraid of losing their jobs, facing retaliation, being revictimized, or of putting their safety and lives at risk. That was precisely one of the reasons why the issue of the protection of reporting persons and corruption whistleblowers became a priority within the Citizen Participation Committee, which I joined in September 2021.
The challenge was not simply to create more channels for receiving information, but to build a legal and institutional framework capable of providing certainty, security, and support to those who file complaints in good faith. Filing a complaint cannot continue to amount, in practice, to an act of personal sacrifice.
Mexico currently has two main avenues for filing complaints concerning acts of corruption: the administrative route and the criminal route. Yet the institutional and legal framework remains fragmented. Important efforts do exist, but they are still insufficient to protect reporting persons and witnesses of corruption across the country. Moreover, existing instruments have focused primarily on administrative offenses, while leaving those who file complaints regarding corruption crimes through criminal channels without adequate protection. In other words, the country has partial efforts, but not a comprehensive national policy capable of bringing together prevention, intake, investigation, protection, and redress.
The inadequacy of the current framework is not an isolated fact. It is a pending issue that has been recognized in both national and international forums. It has been noted that neither the General Law of Administrative Responsibilities nor the Criminal Code provides sufficient protections, incentives, or secure tools for reporting persons. It has also been underscored that Mexico remains behind on its international commitments, particularly under the United Nations Convention against Corruption, whose Article 33 calls for the adoption of appropriate measures to protect, against any unjustified treatment, persons who report facts concerning corruption.
The need for this protection becomes even more evident when viewed in the Mexican context. The country continues to face very high levels of underreporting and deep mistrust of public authorities. At the same time, complaints are one of the most valuable sources of information for understanding how corruption operates, where it reproduces itself, and how effective the institutions responsible for preventing, investigating, and sanctioning truly are. Without complaints being filed, the State loses critical information. Without protection, citizens lose any incentive to speak up. And without both, impunity grows stronger.
For this reason, this agenda has consistently maintained that Mexico needs a specific regulatory framework for whistleblowing and whistleblower protection. Some of the most important corruption cases in the country have come to light thanks to whistleblowers. Yet in many of those cases, there were no protection guarantees and no adequate conditions to safeguard their human rights. That is why one of the central priorities has been to promote a regulatory approach grounded in a victim-centered perspective, focused on redress, prevention of retaliation, and the effective protection of individuals. This vision requires acknowledging that behind every complaint there may be a story of risk, displacement, job loss, harassment, or emotional and financial harm. It is not enough simply to receive information; real conditions for protection and support must be built.
To this end, it has also been important to clarify what is meant by ‘whistleblower’. A definition that has been evolving within the Mexican group of whistleblowing experts, and which applies a victim-centered lens, recognizes a corruption whistleblower as:
any person who makes an oral or written communication, individually or collectively, anonymously or confidentially, whereby they provide data, documents, or information to which they have or once had access, regarding alleged irregularities that have been committed, are being committed, or are likely to be committed by public officials or private parties, whether in the criminal and/or administrative sphere.
This definition matters because it moves beyond a narrow or purely bureaucratic understanding of filing complaints and places at the center the act of speaking up in order to prevent, detect, and investigate acts of corruption.
This definition of whistleblower led us to identify foundational elements that any legal development in this field should include. These include:
- a clear distinction between a reporting person, a whistleblower, and a victim of corruption;
- operational protocols for how authorities should respond to and manage corruption alerts;
- sanctions for conduct that undermines the protective purpose of the framework;
- alignment between the administrative and criminal routes;
- a precise description of protection measures;
- and articulation with efforts already in place.
In this regard, one of our strongest convictions was that Mexico needed a General Law on Corruption Whistleblowers, with harmonized effects on other legal frameworks such as the Criminal Code, the General Law of Administrative Responsibilities, the General Law of the National Anti-Corruption System, and the General Victims Law.
The work to advance this agenda was neither improvised nor isolated. Within the Citizen Participation Committee, one of the most important steps was the consolidation of the group Whistleblowers in the Fight against Corruption. From there, a process of working sessions, technical reflection, and collective drafting began. On June 20, 2023, in the context of World Whistleblower Day, the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs of the United States Embassy in Mexico and the Citizen Participation Committee of Mexico’s National Anti-Corruption System convened the First Working Session on Whistleblowers in the Fight against Corruption in Mexico. Its purpose was to analyze complaints concerning acts of corruption, the existing challenges in this field, and possible initiatives for the development of a law in Mexico. It was from this point that several formal and informal institutional working sessions followed.
As a result of those meetings, it became clear that the Congress of the Union lacked express constitutional authority to legislate on the matter. This led to an initiative to amend Article 73 of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States, which was introduced and published in the Parliamentary Gazette on April 30, 2024. This was a key step because it made clear that the problem was not only one of technical design or political will, but also one of constitutional architecture. If Mexico aspired to enact a general law, it first needed to establish the necessary constitutional basis of authority.
After three years of work, and after presenting a legislative initiative on April 30, 2024, with the support of the United States Embassy in Mexico and the Protection of Reporting Persons and Whistleblowers Working Group at the Global Civil Society Coalition for the UNCAC , it was ultimately agreed that progress should also be made through a parallel path: to development a protocol. This decision was reinforced following a study visit to Washington, D.C., where the group of experts had the opportunity to learn about some of the most relevant practices in the United States. The group was committed to producing an immediate instrument that would move the agenda forward, even if the legislative reform promised by some lawmakers was not yet in place.
In response, the group began developing the Protocol for the Attention and Protection of Reporting Persons and Whistleblowers of Probable Acts of Corruption. The document was finalized in December 2025 and presented in January 2026. It was the result of a collective effort supported and jointly advanced by the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office, under the leadership of Dr. María de la Luz Mijangos, and in addition to myself, Vania Pérez Morales, who is the author of this blog. It also secured the endorsement and signature of anti-corruption prosecutors from across the country who are members of the National Confederation of Anti-Corruption Prosecutors of Mexico.
The protocol responds to the fear of retaliation. It begins from the recognition that, in the absence of a nationwide protection mechanism, those who file complaints are left in a position of vulnerability. It therefore establishes clear and accessible complaint-filing channels, an explicit prohibition of retaliation, concrete protection measures, a fair and diligent investigation process, as well as comprehensive care and support. It is also guided by principles such as dignity, good faith, anonymity, confidentiality, due diligence, free access, timeliness, proportionality, equality and non-discrimination, progressivity, and non-regression. Its value lies in setting out a pathway that runs from the receipt of a complaint through risk assessment, implementation of protection measures, follow-up, evaluation, and closure, including responses to non-compliance.
One of the most important achievements of this process was that the protocol did not remain a desk proposal. On January 22, 2026, the Alliance for Corruption Whistleblowers and Reporting Persons was formally established through an agreement adopting the protocol. In that agreement, the signatory Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Offices expressed their commitment to adopt, implement, and promote the protocol as a strategic tool to strengthen the detection, investigation, and prosecution of corruption-related offenses. Among the most significant commitments were implementing the protocol within their respective areas of authority; ensuring safe, confidential, and, where appropriate, anonymous channels for filing complaints; applying a zero-retaliation policy toward reporting persons and whistleblowers; carrying out timely risk assessments and granting proportionate protection measures; coordinating with the National Anti-Corruption System and other competent authorities to ensure comprehensive protection for whistleblowers; promoting the training of prosecutorial personnel for the proper application of the protocol; and participating in initiatives driven by international cooperation to strengthen coordination, training, and technical assistance for its implementation.
The protocol does not replace the need for a general law. It does not exhaust the agenda. By itself, it does not resolve the structural debt that the Mexican State owes to those who file complaints regarding corruption. But it does constitute a strategic and urgent step to avoid waiting indefinitely for a complete legal framework to materialize. In that sense, it is a practical tool to act now, to coordinate institutions, to harmonize minimum standards, and to begin building trust.
Mexico needs national legislation in this area, protocols, effective channels for filing complaints, and real protection. Above all, however, it needs to be understood that whistleblowers are not a threat, but rather an essential part of the fight against corruption, a key element in reducing impunity, and an indispensable part of building a more just country where the rule of law prevails.
Because as long as filing a complaint entails fear, corruption will continue to perpetuate silence. And as long as the State fails to protect those who speak up, it will continue to fall short of one of its most basic obligations: ensuring that telling the truth does not cost a person their life, their job, or their dignity.