The General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) has appointed this Tuesday the two speakers who will write the report of this body on the proposed amnesty law: the conservative member Wenceslao Olea and the progressive Mar Cabrejas. This has been decided by the permanent commission, which has not set a deadline for preparing the opinion, requested by the Senate Board, a Chamber in which the PP has an absolute majority. There were doubts in the Council as to whether the text should be drafted now or wait for the bill to reach the Senate when it is approved by Congress as a matter of urgency, but permanent sources consulted point out that it is logical that, if it has been requested Now, write it now and send it when it is ready.
The Council must make a mandatory ruling on the bills promoted by the Government, but this procedure is avoided in law proposals such as the one registered by the PSOE to process the amnesty. The conservative sector of the governing body of the judges has publicly expressed itself against the fact that this norm could be approved without the opinion of the Council – as would have been mandatory if it had been registered as a Government bill and not as a proposal from a group. parliamentary—and the popular ones have found a way for this pronouncement to occur. The CGPJ report, in any case, will not be binding.
The Council has already approved a resolution against the pardon measure, a statement that came even before the bill was registered. But that text – agreed upon by nine votes in favor, five against and one blank –, which considers that the amnesty supposes “the degradation, if not the abolition” of the rule of law, had an eminently political nature. The report they write now is supposed to have more legal content.
For reports on the most complex laws, the CGPJ usually appoints at least two members with different sensitivities, and it has done so this time as well. The two chosen for the opinion on the amnesty had opposing opinions on the Council's decision to agree on a text contrary to the pardon measure, judging by the positions they adopted in the plenary session in which that declaration was approved.
Olea was not among the group of conservative members who promoted this statement, but he ended up joining it after agreeing to incorporate several additions to the text in which he included, above all, an extensive legal explanation of the position of these members, who consider that amnesty does not fit in the Constitution. Cabrejas, for his part, voted against that resolution and signed, along with other progressive members, a dissenting vote in which they maintained that with the institutional declaration promoted by the conservatives “there is a serious risk of confusing citizens about the opinion of the judges and magistrates themselves on the content of a norm that does not exist and that, if approved by the legislative power, the one competent to do so, they will be forced to apply, or, where appropriate, to submit to the constitutional controls legally provided for.” .
What affects the most is what happens closest. So you don't miss anything, subscribe.
Subscribe
Subscribe to continue reading
Read without limits
_
#conservative #member #progressive #member #write #CGPJ #report #amnesty