He emphasizes that the TC will say if the law contradicts the equality of Spaniards before the law and the exclusive jurisdiction of Justice

The General Secretariat of Congress, held by the lawyer Fernando Galindo, admits that there may be “possible reasons for unconstitutionality” in the amnesty law proposal presented by the PSOE, but believes that there is no such “obvious” contradiction with the Magna Carta. for the Congress Board to prevent its processing.

This is stated in the report that has been prepared for the governing body of Congress to make a decision on the qualification of the text at its meeting this Tuesday. It is a 21-page document that is not binding.

In the report, to which Europa Press has had access, the senior lawyer details that the initiative does not come into “obvious and obvious” contradiction with article 62, letter i of the Constitution, which prevents “authorizing general pardons”, which in turn trial did occur in the amnesty presented by the independentists in 2021.

Of course, it also admits that the Constitutional Court could find some “non-compliance” depending on the interpretation it makes of the text of the law in the future. Appointment

As he emphasizes, the process of qualification and admission for processing of parliamentary initiatives “is not configured as a prior control of constitutionality” and the non-qualification of an initiative “is in any case exceptional”, since it can “suppose a breach of the fundamental rights provided for in article 23 of the Constitution”.

In fact, it explains that the Board can only disadmit an initiative if it lacks the formal elements required by regulation or if it conflicts with the opinion previously issued by the Constitutional Court.

Specifically, the General Secretariat of Congress indicates that the Board can stop an initiative if its content is “vitiated by a ‘clear and obvious’ unconstitutionality”, that is, if it contains aspects in which the highest interpreter of the Magna Carta has already appreciated a “clear and incontrovertible unconstitutionality.”

The senior lawyer concludes that the amnesty law proposal has no formal defects that make it impossible to admit it for processing and, regarding its content, compares it with the one registered by ERC in 2021, which had a brief unfavorable report from the legal services and It was not graded.


As he recalls, that initiative was inadmissible by the Board with the argument that it was in “clear contradiction with the prohibition of granting general pardons provided for in article 62 i of the Constitution”, but not because the amnesty was considered to be an unconstitutional figure. , something that was not analyzed.

But in the text registered by the PSOE after its pact with Junts and ERC, the lawyers see differences that “allow us to affirm that there is no obvious and obvious contradiction with the provisions of article 62 i of the Constitution.”

Specifically, he alleges that the current initiative “has, from the point of view of its structure, a much clearer similarity” with the Amnesty Law of 1977″ and that, unlike the one promoted by ERC, “it does not include a provision that individualize open causes by identifying them in a concrete and specific way.

However, the report does recognize that “there are other possible reasons for unconstitutionality identified by Ladoctrin, for whose analysis it would be necessary to have doctrine from the Constitutional Court that has not yet been issued.”

Specifically, it cites “a possible non-compliance” with article 14, which proclaims the equality of Spaniards before the law, and with article 117.3, which emphasizes that the power to judge and execute what is judged “corresponds exclusively to the courts and tribunals.” .


Of course, he considers that analyzing these points is the work of the Constitutional Court and there is still no jurisprudence on the matter: “These non-compliances – the senior lawyer adds – would not derive from a direct reading of any precept of the Magna Carta, but from a interpretation of the same applied to the figure of the amnesty that the High Court should carry out”.

And at the moment “there do not seem to exist in the Constitution or in constitutional jurisprudence sufficient parameters or elements to determine whether there is an obvious and obvious contradiction with the Constitution” that would prevent the processing of the bill registered by the socialists. In any case, the senior lawyer recalls that “it is up to the Board of the Chamber, in the exercise of its qualification functions, to decide on this issue.”