The president of the body has chosen to vote blank in the plenary deliberation this Thursday
The General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) has endorsed this Thursday the report on the proposed amnesty law drafted by the member of the conservative sector Wenceslao Olea, who defends that the norm is unconstitutional because it violates – among other issues – the separation of powers and the principle of equality.
As reported by the governing body of the judges, the decision was adopted by nine votes in favor, five against and two blank after the Plenary studied two opposing reports on the amnesty at the request of the Senate: that of Olea and that of the member Mar Cabrejas – from the progressive sector -, who maintained that the bill complies with the Magna Carta, although she highlighted the lack of temporal specification and, regarding terrorism, she lacked a definition of what It is considered a violation of human rights.
The Council has specified that the two blank votes have been cast by the interim president of the CGPJ, Vicente Guilarte, and the member Enrique Lucas. The member Mar Cabrejas – rapporteur of the other proposal submitted for debate – will present a dissenting vote, to which the members Roser Bach, Álvaro Cuesta, Clara Martínez de Careaga and Pilar Sepúlveda adhere.
The report that was finally approved this Thursday states that the amnesty bill does not justify its adaptation to the values, principles and conditions of the Constitution. And he defends that none of the current legal precepts, nor the doctrine of the Constitutional Court, nor the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court allow us to conclude that the amnesty is recognized in Spanish Law.
On the other hand, it insists that the proposition undermines the right to equality, since it considers that the basis of the law that could justify discriminatory treatment is insufficient and arbitrary.
Nor does it see it as admissible that the Legislative Branch can nullify the decisions adopted by the courts, except in cases expressly authorized by the Constitution, as is the case with particular pardons agreed by the Executive. For this reason, he concludes that the law also violates the principle of separation of powers.
Regarding the chosen parliamentary procedure, he maintains that it is arbitrary and that its urgency is not motivated. He understands that it does not pass the constitutionality judgment given its nature as a singular law and does not meet the requirement that the causes that motivate it are not arbitrary.
TERRORISM AND IMPLEMENTATION DEADLINES
This report also considers that the bill does not delimit with sufficient and enforceable clarity the objective scope of the amnesty and warns that the wide indeterminacy of the precepts can lead to diverse legal interpretations, causing social criticism about the effectiveness of the amnesty. law concentrates on the judicial bodies.
Likewise, it is imperative to exclude all terrorist crimes from the amnesty and draws attention to the fact that in the section relating to this crime the reference to the Penal Code was eliminated, while at the same time it disgraces that this was done with the intention that the classification contained in national law is not used by Spanish judicial bodies, but directly by the European directive, which means ignoring the nature and form of application of this type of European regulation.
Furthermore, he points out that the automatic and immediate judicial application of the law is very difficult to agree with the speed that is intended – in two months -. He also maintains that the attempt to annul a European arrest warrant when the law comes into force is contrary to EU law.
He defends, in turn, that the approach that consultations with the Constitutional Court or the CJEU do not suspend the procedure does not comply with the current regulation. And, finally, it states that the attribution to the judicial body of the power to declare the amnesty ex officio that is established in the proposition contradicts essential principles of the criminal process.
THE NOVEMBER INSTITUTIONAL DECLARATION
This is not the first time that the CGPJ has spoken out about the amnesty. On November 6, before the PSOE registered the bill and the Senate demanded a report from the governing body of the judges, the members spoke out through an institutional declaration approved by its plenary session.
In that statement, the Council warned that, if a law in this sense was approved, it would mean the “abolition” of the rule of law. This caused an internal division between the conservative and progressive blocs of the CGPJ.
After the PSOE-Junts agreement was announced, the Permanent Commission met urgently to express its “frontal opposition” to the creation of parliamentary commissions to detect cases of alleged ‘lawfare’ and anticipated that it would act through “legally established channels” if they reached materialize.
Once the bill was registered in the Congress of Deputies, the Permanent Commission met again on December 5 at the request of conservative members, who wanted the executive body to expressly reject the statements of Sánchez and the Minister of Transport, Óscar Bridge, over the ‘lawfare’.
However, the Permanent Commission limited itself to ratifying its initial statement on the parliamentary investigation commissions, warning that it would remain “vigilant”, something that the conservative members considered insufficient.
This Thursday, the Plenary Session met to debate the two reports that were on the table at the request of the Senate. Since it was a bill, it was not mandatory to obtain their opinion. If it had been a bill, it would have been mandatory.
THE PRONUNCIATION OF BOLAÑOS
The CGPJ has deliberated after the two speakers conveyed their conclusions to the rest of the members on March 12. That same day, the Minister of the Presidency, Justice and Relations with the Cortes, Félix Bolaños, spoke about both reports at the press conference after the Council of Ministers.
Although at first the head of Justice limited himself to saying that the two texts were “different” and with “legal arguments” that he “deeply” respected, later – when the press focused on Olea’s report – he assured that the ” conservative members” due to “their closeness to the Popular Party” had “no impartiality”.
Even though the two texts – to which Europa Press has had access – are opposite, they agree in warning of the temporal indeterminacy of the amnesty law and in raising doubts about the section relating to the crime of terrorism.
