The CGPJ affirms that Sánchez’s amnesty “violates” the Constitution

The General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ), in office for almost five years due to the political blockade of its renewal, approved this Monday by a majority an institutional declaration against the future amnesty law negotiated by PSOE, Junts and ERC and which It will benefit those investigated by the ‘procés’ and the cases arising in courts and tribunals: about 700 people.

By nine votes against five, the abstention of the interim president Vicente Guilarte (he was also against but waiting for the publication of the bill) and the absence of the progressive member Álvaro Cuesta, the extraordinary plenary session carried out a text in which they point out directly to Pedro Sánchez for promoting an initiative “that constitutes a perversion of the constitutional regime.”

Regarding the responsibility of the acting president in this future norm, the governing body of the judges – supported by the majority of the nine members of the so-called conservative bloc – considers that the socialist leader confuses the “interest of Spain” with the “interest of the acting President of the Government” to avoid the hypothetical formation of governments of parties with an ideology different from his own, something that is “manifestly incompatible with the political alternation” included in the Constitution.

The document adds that leaving the sentences and cases opened by the ‘procés’ on “wet paper” is something “flatly incompatible with the principle of the rule of law in which Spain was intended to be established and actually was established… at least until now ». And he assures that the bill, of which the final text is not yet known, “invades the powers of the Judiciary as a means of political negotiation.”

The nine conservative members who sign the declaration defend that they are entitled to express their opinion despite not knowing the details of the bill, and explain that they are protected by the Judiciary’s own regulations and European standards on judicial independence.

Furthermore, they reiterate that Sánchez’s plan to remain in power involves “degrading and converting our rule of law into an object of marketing at the service of the personal interest” of the socialist leader, a circumstance that represents the violation of political pluralism.

A risk in Europe

Next, the text approved with the votes against the five progressive members – a minority in this Council with the mandate expired since December 2018 – states that the amnesty means generating a political class that is legally “irresponsible and unpunished for its crimes”, which which means contravening the most basic principle of equality of citizens before the law, proclaimed in article 14 of the Constitution.

Finally, the Council recalls that the measure announced by Sánchez in the last federal committee of the PSOE “violates” not only the Constitution, but also the commitments assumed by Spain in the Treaty of the European Union so that judicial independence prevails. At this point, they warn that the risk that Brussels decides not to be the alibi for a Spain that does not comply with its principles “should be very present, at this critical moment, in the foresight of those who really intend to act in the interest of Spain.” .

Prior to the extraordinary plenary session this Monday, the progressive councilor Álvaro Cuesta, former socialist deputy and lawyer by profession, sent a letter to Guilarte asking him to call off the meeting after appreciating that it is “manifestly illegal” because its purpose is contrary “to the legal system and “constitutional functions” of the Council.

Cuesta stated that in the “political pamphlet” that his conservative colleagues propose to approve as an institutional declaration “a possible amnesty law proposal, not yet presented or registered in Congress, and the possible political agreements or parliamentary decisions on the possible investiture of the President of the Government, describing it as illegal and unconstitutional.

But Guilarte answered him hours later to inform him that the plenary session was held in accordance with the house regulations. In his previous letter, Cuesta warned him that if the interim president continued with the conclave he would not attend, as ultimately happened. However, none of his colleagues from the so-called progressive bloc supported him in his plan.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *