The devastating writing of eight members of the Judiciary denouncing that the amnesty implies “the abolition of the rule of law”

@ElentirENG ES 11·01·2023 · 18:38 0

Today 8 of the 20 members of the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) have published a writing about the amnesty announced by Sánchez.

The massive protest against the amnesty overflows the Plaza de Colón in Madrid
The Sánchez's betrayal of the rule of law and its effects: who will respect the laws?

The document is a request for an extraordinary plenary session in the CGPJ to address this amnesty. The document is signed by the following members: Carmen Llombart, José Antonio Ballestero, Francisco Gerardo Martínez-Tristán, Juan Manuel Fernández, Juan Martínez Moya, José María Macías, Nuria Díaz Abad and María Ángeles Carmona. The text includes a proposal for an institutional declaration that the Council must vote on, and which, if approved, would express, among other things, "its intense concern and desolation for what this measure means of degradation, if not abolition, of the rule of law in Spain, which from the moment it is adopted will become a mere formal proclamation that will inevitably have to produce consequencesto the detriment of the real interest of Spain."

The eight members also point out: "Confuse the “interest of Spain” with the interest of the acting President of the Government to avoid the hypothetical formation of governments of parties with an ideology different from their own is something manifestly incompatible with political alternation, embedded in the basic principle of political pluralism which, according to article 1 of our Constitution, is a superior value of our legal system."

The full document, distributed by The Objective, can be read here (see PDF) . For its interest, I publish its English translation below.

---

TO THE PRESIDENCY (p.s.) OF THE GENERAL COUNCIL OF THE JUDICIAL POWER
REQUEST FOR EXTRAORDINARY PLENARY SESSION

Under the provisions of articles 600.2 LOPJ and 35 ROF, the members Carmen Llombart Pérez, José Antonio Ballestero Pascual, Francisco Gerardo Martínez-Tristán, Juan Manuel Fernández Martínez, Juan Martínez Moya, José María Macías Castaño, Nuria Díaz Abad and Maria Ángeles Carmona Vergara request the holding of an extraordinary plenary session under the agenda indicated below, to be held on the date convened within three days following the presentation of this request. The proposed institutional declaration that motivates the request to hold an extraordinary plenary session is attached and it means that there is no additional documentation to provide.

ORDER OF THE DAY

Debate and adoption, if applicable, of the following institutional declaration:

“The General Council of the Judiciary, exercising and reaffirming its constitutional functions to defend the full validity of the Constitution, the rule of law and the integrity of jurisdictional power, has agreed to approve the following

INSTITUTIONAL DECLARATION

The General Council of the Judiciary has been observing with growing concern the statements of members of some minority political parties, some of them with government responsibilities, regarding the possible amnesty for crimes committed on the occasion of the episodes that occurred on December 1. October 2017, as well as those also committed previously for its preparation, including corruption crimes, and those that were also committed subsequently to oppose the legitimate action of the State to carry out its authors before justice and restore the altered public and constitutional order.

To the extent that these statements were not supported by a statement from the acting President of the Government, this Council has preferred to maintain an attitude of cautious expectation. The silence of the acting President of the Government, however, was broken last Saturday, October 28 and in a widely publicized personal statement he stated two things: the first, that he has effectively agreed upon an amnesty law with political parties that includes, among others, the one led by a fugitive from justice who will personally benefit from the measure; the second, that the measure will be adopted in “the interest of Spain” to prevent a possible government of right-wing parties in the event of a repeat election.

The statement by the acting President of the Government justifies the General Council of the Judiciary issuing its opinion through an institutional declaration, all the more so since it has also been made public that, despite the fact that the Government of Spain presents itself as its promoter, the future amnesty law will be processed as a bill, thereby eluding, once again, the advisory function of this Councilin aspects in which the Organic Law of the Judiciary requires its intervention.

With this declaration, the General Council of the Judiciary expresses its intense concern and desolation for what this measure represents as a degradation, if not abolition, of the rule of law in Spain, which from the moment it is adopted will pass to be a mere formal proclamation that will inevitably have to produce consequences detrimental to the real interest of Spain.

Whatever the formal or apparent justification that is given in the preamble of the future law, its real motivation has already been expressed, and beyond the discussion about whether amnesties are really constitutionally acceptable To override the constitutional prohibition of general pardons, what in no case can be accepted is an amnesty, and not even a particular pardon of those generically admitted by the Constitution, with the real basis expressed by the President of the acting Government.

Confusing the “interest of Spain” with the interest of the acting President of the Government to avoid the hypothetical formation of governments of parties with an ideology different from his own is something manifestly incompatible with the political alternation, inherent in the basic principle of political pluralism which, according to article 1 of our Constitution, is a superior value of our legal system. But doing it excepting the application of the law to prevent the ongoing action of the courts or nullifying the action that has already taken place through final sentences, turning those sentences into a dead letter, is something categorically incompatible with the principle of the rule of law in which, again according to article 1 of our Constitution, Spain was intended to be established and actually was established... at least until now.

And this General Council of the Judiciary insists that this is the case even outside the general debate on the viability, which we deny, of amnesties within the framework of our Constitution.
First, because it is not compatible with the principle of the rule of law proclaimed by article 1 of our Constitution, and not even with the principle of responsibility of public powers referred to in article 9.3, that political leaders be exempt from answering for their crimes before the courts, whatever the nature of their crimes, so that an aspiring President of the Government can obtain the personal and political benefit of prevent the government of other political forces or, expressed by its reverse, to be able to remain in government. This means degrading and turning our rule of law into a marketing object at the service of personal interest that seeks to present itself, from the rejection of political pluralism, as the “interest of Spain.”

Second, because it means generating a caste that is legally irresponsible and unpunished for its crimes which, while not being justified by any constitutionally legitimate purpose, means contravening not only the principle of responsibility of public powers, but even the most basic principle of equality of citizens before the law proclaimed by article 14 of the Constitution.

Third, because the independence of the courts is violated in its most basic aspect: if independence is the necessary instrument so that the courts can act with neutrality and guarantee, through the effectiveness of their decisions, the principle of legal security, it is difficult to speak of independence or legal security when political forces use the laws for their benefit to prevent the action of the courts. The enormity of the consequences of what has been announced by the acting President of the Government is that it turns the independence of the courts and legal certainty, justice in short, into a chimera.

And finally, this General Council of the Judiciary cannot fail to point out that what is violated by the measure announced by the President of the Government is not only the Constitution with which we Spaniards provide ourselves as a framework. of coexistence, but also the commitments assumed by Spain in articles 2 and 19 of the Treaty of the European Union so that the principles of the rule of law and judicial independence prevail at all times.

The risk that the moment will come in which the European Union decides not to be the alibi of a State that does not comply with its principles should be very present, at this critical moment, in the forecast of those who intend to really act in the “interest of Spain”.

Madrid, October 31, 2023”

Carmen Llombart Pérez
Vocal

Francisco Gerardo Martínez-Tristán
Vocal

Juan Martínez Moya
Vocal

Nuria Díaz Abad
Vocal

José Antonio Ballestero Pascual
Vocal

Juan Manuel Fernández Martínez
Vocal

José María Macías Castaño
Vocal

Maria Ángeles Carmona Vergara
Vocal

---

Photo: Consejo General del Poder Judicial.