Sánchez avoids referring to the decision of the court of guarantees and assures that nothing will alter his strategy to take the legislature until 2023
In his first public intervention after the Constitutional ruling against the state of alarm, Pedro Sánchez avoided, unlike his ministers, criticizing the decision of the court of guarantees, a blow to the Government. In Moncloa, on the other hand, they have already begun to work in the search for legal alternatives to the state of alarm to face future pandemics.
Sánchez closed today in Seville an act of his party with the new leader of the Andalusian Socialists, Juan Espadas, and with his silence he tried to put a point and apart in the clash between the Government and the Constitutional. Not half a word was devoted to the matter. He just pointed out that the decision of the magistrates will not alter the course of his strategy until the end of the legislature in the face of an opposition “that says no to everything.”
The criticism of Pablo Casado was taken as a joke for naming his ministers “by finger” in the recent government crisis, but he insisted that he was not going to step on the playing field sought by the opposition. «There they with their confrontation and tension, we with what is important: vaccination, modernization and recovery. That is what we are going to do until 2023 ».
The absence of references to the court’s ruling does not mean that the Government is going to assume the judicial setback without further ado. Sánchez has already assigned duties to his new Minister of the Presidency, Félix Bolaños, to look for legal tools other than the state of alarm and for the Government to have an unassailable legal framework with which to face eventual pandemics or other catastrophes. In Moncloa they want to know the literality of the sentence because what has transpired is only the project of the same that has been prepared by the magistrate, Pedro González-Trevijano.
In Moncloa they discard Casado’s prescription to reform the 1986 law on Special Public Health Measures because they argue that it cannot be hung on an ordinary norm, it does not even have the rank of organic law, measures that restrict individual rights included in the Constitution .
The first steps point to a specific pandemic law, which Sánchez has so far resisted facing, but which some allies of the investiture bloc, such as Esquerra or the PNV, have demanded because it would increase the ability of the autonomous communities to maneuver if They are empowered to adopt restrictive measures against the movements of the population without going through the courts of justice.
State of emergency
The creation of an intermediate legal framework between the state of alarm and the state of exception also appears among the ideas that are handled. A formula that was already considered in her day by the previous vice president Carmen Calvo in the negotiations she had with Ciudadanos. The number two of the liberals, Edmundo Bal, has confirmed that in those conversations a reform of law 4/1981 was on the table, which regulates the state of alarm, to better limit the limitation of movements of the population. It could be, socialist sources point out, a kind of state of emergency like the one that has been applied in other European countries to deal with this pandemic.
What seems out of the question, according to government experts, is to resort to the state of exception, which, according to the Constitution, would be the appropriate framework for an intense restriction of individual rights. The Government considers that it is a legal framework designed for other circumstances, especially of a terrorist nature or serious disturbance of public order. The last time it was decreed was under the Franco dictatorship, on April 25, 1975, and it was limited to Guipúzcoa and Vizcaya after a wave of ETA attacks.
In addition, it is not an agile spring for its implementation because it requires the prior permission of Parliament to the Government, which in turn should substantiate its request and specify what rights it intends to cut. On the other hand, it is only applicable for 30 days with the possibility of an extension for the same period. It is not designed for, for example, the six months that the last state of alarm has lasted