The hypothetical amnesty law, demand for Carles Puigdemont to facilitate the investiture of Pedro Sanchez through the support of Together for Cataloniahas many “nuances” pending “definition”, although the first debate must clarify whether the amnesty “fits” in the Constitution and, if so, and if there is a “constitutionally legitimate purpose”, he has indicated Pablo Llarenamagistrate of the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court.
In a conference at the Faculty of Law of Burgos, Llarena insisted this Monday that it is early for a statement on a possible amnesty lawsince “many nuances are needed that are not yet on the table”, and has indicated that from an academic perspective the first debate focuses on analyzing “whether or not the constitutional order allows amnesty”.
“If we conclude that it does not fit, then the debate is over,” he pointed out, but if it is concluded that it does fit, “then we must look at whether the possible law is legitimate or justified,” that is, “if it does not is unconstitutional, if applicable.”
And for this it is necessary to know the statement of reasonsthe reasons that support it and if they respect the constitutional demands“if there is a constitutionally legitimate purpose that justifies deactivating fundamental constitutional principles”, such as the division of powers or equality, the Supreme Court judge has indicated.
For this reason, Pablo Llarena has insisted that, right now, “there cannot be a statement”because “we only know that there is one man” who, after a process, has determined that there are “rational signs of criminality” and demands amnesty.
In the specific case of Puigdemont, the magistrate has stated that “we must see if what this man demands conforms to the constitutional principles” and, Llarena indicated, promise political support to favor an investiture. “it doesn’t seem like that reason has enough force”since the Constitution already includes the procedure to follow if a candidate does not obtain enough votes to be invested as president of the Government.
Furthermore, Puigdemont “insists” that his actions have been legal, the magistrate stated, but the judicial procedure does not reflect this, in addition to the fact that there is a crime of embezzlement “that has not been repealed”, and he “boasts that has the right to do so,” when talking about self-determination.
The Supreme Court judge has reiterated that, for the moment, these are “the only parameters that we can evaluate”, and we must first start by defining whether the amnesty fits in the Constitution and, in that case, if it is justified by interests. legitimate.
Subject to the rule of law
In his conference, which was titled ‘The judiciary as guarantor of the rule of law’, Pablo Llarena recalled that, following what is stated in article 117 of the Constitution, judges are responsible, immovable, independent and are “subject to exclusively to the rule of law”.
And he added that, in the exercise and defense of that independence, they also have to be impartial, and not only have to be impartial but appear to be impartial, hence the importance of forms, otherwise that image “erodes the credibility of the judicial system and the rule of law.”
The magistrate has admitted that the independence of judges “fundamentally generates difficulties in the relationship with other powers of the State”, such as the political, and has warned that a “slide” is taking place that causes “value positions to be lost” and that that independence is “weakened.”
Related news
Among the risks of this slippage is the system of choosing the members of the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ), which is generating “disturbances”, and is part of the “noise” that, although it does not harm the functioning of the system, does contribute to weakening the social perception of the judges.
He too constitutional Courtwith “possible dysfunctions”, contributes to the loss of credibility, the same as the gaugings, which are seen as “an instrument that operates to favor certain privileged people” but that Judge Llarena does not consider that they should be eliminated, only ” review” in some cases.