The government applaud ‘sine die’ the ‘law Begoña’ for its loneliness in Congress

Thus, at the table meeting held this week The PSOE did not want to include this initiative Among the issues to be taken to take into consideration, which is the next step in the parliamentary process. The risk is too high, because at this time a vote in full would reap a resounding ‘no’ at least of the PP, Vox, Junts and Podemos, so it would be rejected. If an initiative is not taken into consideration, it definitely declines.

Thus, that debate could be held as soon in the plenary of the next March 18although it seems unlikely. Asked about the status of conversations with parliamentary groups, the PSOE assures this newspaper that “we speak and progress.” However, before the direct question of whether there is any forecast to approve the initiative, they answer that “no” and admit that “it does not seem soon.”

The PP complaint

On January 16, the Congress table described and admitted the proposal with the vote in favor of the PSOE and the Almar and the opposition of the PP, which tried at that meeting to open a debate on the constitutionality of the norm. The table made the decision without the lawyers issuing a report in this regard, despite the criticisms formulated in legal fields From the same day of his presentation before public opinion and reasonable doubts about his lace in the Constitution.

In the Board of Subsequent spokesmen, the PP requested the reconsideration of the decision of the table from the conviction that it was a reform of the Magna Carta through the back door. Therefore, on February 1, the spokesman for the popular group, Miguel Telladorequested the table two things: reconsider the admission and that the lawyers of the lower house will prepare a report: “That by the legal services of the General Secretariat of the Congress the corresponding technical-legal report on the constitutional alignment of the legislative initiative is evaluated.”

In his writing, of 22 pages, Tellado appeals to three ideas. The first is its conviction that the table “has the duty to prevent the processing of any initiative that involves altering unilaterally and outside the planned procedures, the constitutional framework”, as well as “that the resolutions of the Constitutional Court are breached.” Second, the “Obvious and Palmaria” unconstitutionality of a rule with “low technical-legal quality” and “precipitously drafted to the letter of imputed by various and serious specific crimes belonging to the family and political environment of the president of the Government to ensure preventively its amnesty and guarantee its own impunity and its own, now and in the future.” The third and final point that the PP wields is the incompatibility with the European legal system.

The ‘no’ of the lawyer

The table response to the request for reconsideration of the PP, which has been acceded ABC, was negative because “it does not correspond to the table, in the exercise of its qualification functions, develop a kind of prior control of constitutionality” and because it would mean “A violation of the fundamental right of their drivers ». In the five -page brief, the table ensures that “it must be limited to verifying that the analyzed initiatives meet the formal requirements established by the regulation (…) when a contradiction is appreciated with the Palmaria and evident Constitution or, in another way, clear, clear and incontrovertible.”

However, it does recognize that the table can act preventively, although only in cases where “it has been intended to influence the basic institutions of the State in an opposite direction to the constitutional text”: State of autonomies, State Headquarters, prohibition of general pardons, reserves the Executive of the legislative initiative in budgetary matters or scope of the role of the general courts in relation to the foreign policy of the State. Thus, the table decided to agree its admission to process for understanding the formal and ideal requirements of the type of initiative chosen; Do not appreciate a contradiction that is palmaria and evident with the Constitution; and there is no pronouncement of the Constitutional Court that this initiative is breaking.

In the table response there is a more controversial issue in relation to the refusal of the camera table to which the lawyers will make a report: He was not asked for “at the timely procedural moment”which in his opinion was at the first meeting of January 16. However, the parliamentary sources consulted by this newspaper ensure that in the Congress regulations “it is not specified at any time when the lawyers should inform: the possibility of doing so does not expire because it has not been informed in the first moment.” Moreover, they insist that there are regulations of the Chamber “that forces to inform ex officio” when the initiative has constitutional scope. “The reports of the lawyers develop in a different level to the functions of the Constitutional Court.”

Almost two months have elapsed since the PSOE presented the initiative to limit popular action and the cataract of adverse reactions both in the legal and politicians are still in force. Given the event that the PSOE finally manages to approve it, in the PP and Vox already study the possibility of presenting an appeal before the Constitutional Court. Those of Santiago Abascal do not have the fifty minimum deputies required to present that resource, so in any case I would have to go to the Ombudsman to request that appeal.

Criticism of judicial associations

The criticisms of judicial associations on the initiative have not ceased, and range from the bottom of the matter, eliminate or limit popular action; in the way of doing so, through a proposal of law in Parliament to dodge the reports of the state advisory bodies; and, even, to the name of the initiative, Organic Law of Guarantee and Protection of Fundamental Rights against harassment derived from abusive judicial actions, so this denomination has an attack on the judicial system. This is understood by the Professional Association of the Magistracy (APM), the Francisco de Vitoria Association (AJFV), Judges and Judges for Democracy (JJPD) and the Independent Judicial Forum (FJI).

The spokeswoman for the APM, María Jesús Pérez del Barco, regrets that with this initiative “in the end she will not be able to accuse.” In his opinion this will be especially serious when it is crimes linked to the political sphere: «He puts subjective requirements about who can exercise the popular accusation, and prevents them from being political parties, associations, judicial and fiscal associations, as if we dedicated ourselves to that. And will you only accuse the Prosecutor’s Office? What if the prosecution’s decision is not to act, as we can suspect that it can happen in some matters that are linked to the government party? In this sense, the spokeswoman of the APM and Dean of the Courts of Plaza de Castilla (Madrid) warns that “these bad reforms then stay” and when the government changes “the one who arrives does not change them because they can also favor him.” “Open the door for political crimes to stay without chasing,” he emphasizes with ABC. Similarly, he criticizes that it limits the judge’s ability to decide what evidence is valid “and then the disaster with the additional provision”, which establishes that it can be applied retroactively.

Consulted by this newspaper, Judge Joaquim Bosch understands that the proposal of law involves “emptying of content” the figure of the popular accusation, which can cause “reasonable doubts” of constitutionality. In his opinion, the popular accusation “only generates controversy in specific cases,” and yet the Government “intends its suppression or limitation in many procedures that currently do not generate problematic situations, which would drastically limit arbitrarily the citizen participation in justice.”

Although the judge sees “positive” to open a debate on possible abuses in the exercise of popular accusation, its application would mean “a setback” of the rule of law in Spain.

Criticism cataract of the ‘Begoña Law’