The Judiciary will extend its report contrary to the amnesty law

The report of the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) on the amnesty law will be postponed. The permanent commission of the governing body of the judges will request this Thursday that the usual period of thirty days be extended to respond to the request made by the Senate in order to obtain its opinion on the legality of said bill and its fit or incompatibility with the Constitution. The dominant criterion in the Council is that it is advisable to adjust the deadlines for the preparation of the aforementioned report, especially taking into account that Parliament is going to shortly begin the debate on the amendments formulated, which may imply changes to the text presented. In any case, sources from the judiciary's own governing body assume that there will be no consensus on the report and that along with the text that the conservative majority may approve, there will be other alternatives from the progressive minority group in the form of dissenting individual votes.

The Senate Board, in which the PP has an absolute majority, agreed on December 5 to address the General Council of the Judiciary and the Fiscal Council – the main representative body of the race – to ask them to prepare separate reports on the proposed law. of amnesty. The period of thirty days for the preparation of this type of opinions is, in fact, indicative, because its compliance depends, among other factors, on the date of receipt of the order and the pace at which the preparatory tasks follow, such as the appointment of the rapporteur or rapporteurs. of the text. In this case, there were two appointees, the conservative Wenceslao Olea and the progressive Mar Cabrejas. Since before the Christmas break, both have held a meeting with the Council's lawyers who will take part in the preparation of the report and the probable alternative texts. An organizational model has been designed, but not much progress has been made, in part because there is no awareness that the work entrusted to the Council is particularly urgent.

The report has to be approved by a plenary session, and the next one is on the 25th, unless one is convened on an extraordinary basis. In principle, this possibility has been ruled out, because we do not want to act in great haste or give the impression that we are rushing to satisfy those most critical of the bill. That will already happen, if applicable, with the text that is approved. At the moment, the speakers want to try to reach an agreement, although in their respective sectors it is not believed to be possible. In the conservative and progressive blocs there is already preparatory work and consolidated criteria on the legality or incompatibility of the text agreed upon by the PSOE and the pro-independence parties on the amnesty, opinions that are unlikely to change in light of the debate on the amendments in Congress. But the extension that is going to be requested from the Senate will allow us to know its content.

The debate on amendments in committee is scheduled to begin in Congress the week of next the 22nd. The plenary session of the Judiciary will, in turn, be on the 25th of this month. The report on the amnesty law will not be finished in that plenary session. In the Council it is assumed that the Senate will have no objection to giving no less than two more weeks for it to be prepared. This brings to February 29 the probable date for the Judiciary to approve its report, with its corresponding dissenting votes. That day, the last Thursday of the month, is the day designated for plenary sessions of the governing body of judges, which holds them with said frequency.

The commissioning of the report by the Senate circumvented the strategy followed by the Government and the PSOE to prevent the discussion of the law from having as an obligatory prologue the preparation of reports from advisory bodies, such as that of the Council itself. This type of reports is mandatory, although their conclusions are not binding, when it comes to bills sent by the Government. On the other hand, it is dispensable when it comes to law proposals, submitted by parliamentary groups, as is the case of the amnesty law. The PP wanted the opinion to be requested because it considered that the amnesty “violates the principle of separation of powers” ​​and that it will have “serious consequences in the very configuration of the Judiciary.” The governing body of the judges, in turn, accepted the request, trying to cover itself from the accusation of interfering in the functions of Parliament, for which it appealed to the provisions of the organic law of the Judiciary itself in a provision bus, practically all-encompassing. Said precept is article 561.1.9º, which enables you to report on “any other matter that the Government, the Cortes Generales or, where appropriate, the Legislative Assemblies of the Autonomous Communities deem appropriate.”

Final approval

To facilitate the extension of the debate periods, the PP also modified the regulations of the Senate, which will have two months to discuss the law. It is likely that, therefore, the text will not return to Congress for final approval until next April. There are conservative members in favor of approving a harsh report against the bill this month. But the request for the extension indicates that, except for last minute changes, it is a minority group. The Constitutional Court, in turn, has already received the PSOE's appeal against said reform of the Senate regulations. If it is accepted for processing, as will most likely happen, a report will have to be requested from the parties, which places the foreseeable date of the sentence in a few months, when the parliamentary debate on the amnesty law will have already ended, and the The guarantee court itself will have on the table the PP's unconstitutionality appeal against the law that the PSOE and its partners close in Parliament, foreseeably at the beginning of next May.

_