The National Human Rights Commission filed a constitutional challenge against Puerto Vallarta’s foreign tourist tax for 2025, arguing that Article 80 Bis violates legal certainty and fair treatment. Read about the implications of the Puerto Vallarta foreign tourist tax challenge.
In late March 2025, Mexico’s National Human Rights Commission (Comisión Nacional de los Derechos Humanos, CNDH) took formal legal action against Puerto Vallarta’s decision to impose a fee on foreign visitors. The commission filed a constitutional challenge (archivo 41/2025) before the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación, SCJN) targeting Article 80 Bis of the Puerto Vallarta Municipal Revenue Law for fiscal year 2025. That article, ratified as Decree 29826/LXIV/25 and published on February 27, establishes a fee of 1.25 Unidad de Medida y Actualización (UMA) per foreigner to use municipal services, public goods, and shared spaces.
CNDH President María del Rosario Piedra Ibarra submitted the appeal on March 31. In her petition, she argues that Article 80 Bis violates fundamental constitutional principles, including legal certainty, legality, and tax justice. According to the CNDH, the provision fails to meet basic standards of a valid tax: it omits clear definitions of taxable events, lacks transparency on revenue allocation, and imposes regulatory complexity that undermines fair treatment. Puerto Vallarta residents, local activists, and some tourism operators have voiced concerns that the fee could discourage legitimate economic activity or unfairly target foreigners who contribute to local employment and community life.
Background on Article 80 Bis
Puerto Vallarta’s municipal government approved Article 80 Bis as part of its 2025 budgetary reforms. The new regulation imposes a fee—calculated at 1.25 UMA (currently equivalent to approximately $100 MXN) per foreign visitor—for accessing municipal services, public parks, beaches, and other amenities. The official decree enumerates several “public services and goods” subject to the fee, including waste collection, public lighting, maintenance of roads, and beach cleaning efforts.
While local authorities justified the fee as a means to bolster revenue for citywide infrastructure and maintenance, critics say the measure lacks a clear legal basis. Under Mexican tax law, any new municipal charge must specify essential elements—who pays, what triggers payment, how the base is calculated, and how the funds will be used. The CNDH contends that Article 80 Bis omits or obscures many of these elements, making it impossible for foreigners to determine their obligations in advance. That absence of legal certainty, the commission argues, conflicts with Article 16 of the Federal Constitution, which requires clear guidelines for taxpayers.
Legal Arguments Presented by CNDH
In its constitutional appeal, the CNDH asserts three principal violations:
- Legal Certainty and Legality
The commission points out that Article 80 Bis does not clearly identify the taxable event or provide transparent methodology for calculating the fee. Under Mexican constitutional tax norms, a valid levy must state in exact terms the taxpayer, rate, base, and purpose. Because the Puerto Vallarta ordinance fails to define “use of municipal services” in precise legal language, the fee effectively rests on arbitrary interpretation. That, the CNDH maintains, erodes legal certainty and violates the principle of legality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. - Tax Justice and Equality
The CNDH argues that singling out foreigners for a separate fee against municipal services, when local residents already contribute through property taxes and service fees, amounts to unequal treatment. Many foreigners reside in Puerto Vallarta for extended periods, own property, and create jobs through commerce or rental services. Imposing an additional “visitor fee” for the mere act of walking on a beach or accessing basic city utilities creates an unjust double burden. According to the commission, that contravenes Article 31 of the Constitution, which mandates a fair distribution of tax burdens. - Failure to Promote Human Rights and Social Integration
By imposing a fee specifically on foreigners, the ordinance, in the CNDH’s view, casts a negative perception on non-residents. The commission notes that part of Puerto Vallarta’s local economy relies on foreign-visitor spending: tourists support hotels, restaurants, and artisanal markets. Charging them an extra tax could discourage visitors, undercut local employment, and hamper intercultural ties. The CNDH frames this as a matter of human rights, arguing that any municipal regulation that hampers access to public spaces based on nationality undermines social integration and nondiscrimination principles recognized in international treaties.
Scope of Exceptions and Persisting Concerns
Article 80 Bis does enumerate specific exceptions to the fee. It excludes children under 14, persons with disabilities, certified tourist guides, registered tour-operator employees, cruise ship crew, and foreigners with temporary or permanent residency. Proponents of the fee highlight that these carve-outs serve vulnerable groups and key economic actors. Still, the CNDH contends the exceptions do not remedy the ordinance’s foundational legal flaws. The commission argues that basic principles of taxation require a solid legal foundation for all contributions, irrespective of exceptions.
Critics also call attention to “regulatory complexity.” The municipal government expects hotel and lodging operators to collect the fee at check-in and remit payments to the treasury. Small inns, rental properties, and short-term lodging platforms might face new administrative burdens. In addition, foreign pedestrians—visitors not staying overnight—must locate payment kiosks or use a mobile app to settle the fee, raising logistical questions about enforcement. According to some local business owners, this complexity risks confusion, noncompliance, and arbitrary fines.
Implications for Puerto Vallarta and Wider Municipal Policy
The CNDH’s appeal asks the SCJN to declare Article 80 Bis unconstitutional and void. If the Supreme Court accepts constitutional review and rules in favor of the CNDH, Puerto Vallarta’s local government would have to repeal or substantially amend the measure. Beyond Puerto Vallarta, legal experts are watching whether other coastal or tourist-dependent municipalities might attempt similar levies to offset local budget shortfalls.
In recent years, several tourist hubs in Jalisco and neighboring states have debated “visitor fees” or “eco-tourism levies.” Advocates argue that these fees generate revenue for beach cleanup, infrastructure improvements, and environmental protection. Critics warn against creating a patchwork of local taxes that single out nonresidents. A favorable constitutional ruling for the CNDH could set a precedent, signaling to other municipalities that any special tax on foreigners must strictly adhere to constitutional tax norms and human-rights considerations.
Perspectives from Local Stakeholders
Several observers in Puerto Vallarta have expressed mixed opinions. Some city council members defending the ordinance say the fee was never meant to deter tourism; rather, they view it as a modest contribution—roughly $5 USD per visitor—to support overcrowded public services. They point to mounting demands on waste management and beach maintenance during peak season, claiming revenues will directly fund shore-cleanup crews and public restrooms.
Opponents—including hospitality business owners—warn that the fee could tarnish Puerto Vallarta’s reputation as a welcoming destination. Local hotelier organizations circulated a letter in late February, claiming that tourists already contribute significant sums through lodging, dining, and local transportation. They argue that an extra fee would discourage bookings and hurt the city’s post-pandemic recovery.
Meanwhile, local human-rights advocates have rallied behind the CNDH’s initiative. They held a demonstration in mid-April at Puerto Vallarta’s main plaza, calling for “equal treatment under the law.” Dozens of activists and expats carried signs reading “No More Foreign Taxes” and “Human Rights First.” María del Rosario Piedra Ibarra herself visited Puerto Vallarta on April 10 to meet with local groups, emphasizing that her commission’s role is to protect every person’s rights, regardless of nationality.
Next Steps and Timeline
Under Supreme Court procedures, the SCJN’s First Chamber must first admit the constitutional controversy for review. If accepted, the justices will analyze written briefs from the CNDH, the Puerto Vallarta municipal government, and any intervening parties. They may also request oral argument. A decision could take several months. In the interim, Puerto Vallarta’s ordinance remains in force, and foreigners visiting or residing without resident status technically remain subject to Article 80 Bis.
The CNDH’s appeal also urges the Jalisco State Congress to refrain from approving similar provisions in other municipalities. Should the Supreme Court rule against Article 80 Bis, the CNDH hopes the decision will curb attempts by local legislatures to single out foreigners for special fees. Beyond budgetary concerns, the commission underscores that human-rights protections and constitutional safeguards must prevail.
For now, foreign visitors planning a trip to Puerto Vallarta should monitor local news and check official municipal websites to determine if payment kiosks or online systems are operational. Some tourism websites have already begun advising visitors to confirm the status of the fee to avoid fines or complications upon arrival.
As the case moves forward, the SCJN’s decision will clarify whether the Puerto Vallarta foreign tourist tax challenge can reshape how Mexican municipalities approach visitor-based levies. Meanwhile, the CNDH continues to assert that any municipal tax must respect constitutional norms, human-rights guarantees, and principles of fairness—not just for residents, but for all who step onto Puerto Vallarta’s beaches.
The National Human Rights Commission filed a constitutional challenge against Puerto Vallarta’s foreign tourist tax for 2025, arguing that Article 80 Bis . . .
