The magistrate of the Constitutional Court (TC) Pedro González-Trevijano, rapporteur for the appeal filed by Vox against the first state of alarm activated by the Executive of Pedro Sánchez, has proposed to the court to declare unconstitutional the decree and its extensions that they kept confined in their addresses to Spaniards as of March 14, 2020. The magistrate considered that a cut in fundamental rights of this magnitude (in particular home confinement) would only have had protection in a state of exception, as alleged by the Santiago party Abascal.
González-Trevijano’s proposal, advanced by ‘El Español’ and confirmed by judicial sources of all solvency, will be analyzed as of June 22 by the full court, coinciding with the first anniversaries of the end of that first state of alarm. 98 days, which was extended from that March 14 to June 21, 2020.
In its letter, written by the deputy Macarena Olona and signed by the 52 Vox parliamentarians in Congress, the party alleged that the “state of alarm does not allow the suspension of the rights of Title I” of the Constitution, on the rights and fundamental duties of Spaniards, nor “any restriction on freedom of residence.” In this way, it defended that only in states of emergency or siege can it be agreed to suspend the rights established in Article 19 of the Magna Carta, that is, that of choice of residence, that of circulation through the national territory and that of leaving and entering the national territory.
In its appeal, the Abascal formation insisted that the Government had used in an “abusive and inappropriate way” the figure of the state of alarm “with a clear violation of the public freedoms of the Spanish.” Vox pointed out that with the state of alarm there was only room for the restriction of free movement and accused the Government of having bypassed the state of exception “because for this they would have to go to Congress and tell what their project was.”
The appeal that was presented at the end of April of last year when that state of alarm was still in force although the Government was beginning to open its hand and allow people to walk abroad for a limited time. Vox, throughout the extreme confinement, was changing his mind. At the beginning he voted in favor of the first extension after insistently demanding that state of alarm, but then he voted against the following ones.
According to sources close to the Constitutional Court, in essence the rapporteur endorses the arguments that Olona adduced in his day, although they emphasize from the court that this does not mean by any means that this draft “anticipates” an affirmative vote of the plenary on this question as tricky and whose resolution is late.
And it is that the Constitutional Court had planned to have resolved the appeal of Vox against that first state of alarm weeks ago, but that this process has been delayed because in principle the presentation fell on the magistrate Fernando Valdés, who left the TC on account of the cause court that he has opened in the Supreme Court for a crime of mistreatment in the family environment against his wife. When Valdés left the court, he had practically written a paper that, however, González-Trevijano preferred to start over from scratch.
The new speaker -explain legal sources- wanted to leave his mark on a text that he knows could have a great impact. Not because of the legal consequences, since it will be more than a year since that state of alarm ended, but because it is aware that the Constitutional ruling will set the limits for future states of alarm, since the generalized application throughout the country has never been before. of this extraordinary legislation had reached the court of guarantees, since only once before the pandemic, during the crisis of the controllers of 2010, had this mechanism been activated.