Half of the fiscal dome revolts against the amendment that enables Delgado to inform the Government

Half of the tax dome has turned to the State Attorney General, Dolores Delgadoto ask him to notify the Congress of Deputies and the PSOE of the need to withdraw the amendment that his parliamentary group presented during the processing of bankruptcy law to avoid the point in which the obligation of the highest representative of the Public Prosecutor’s Office to inform the Government is enshrined, “on its own initiative or when it is interested in the performance of the Public Prosecutor’s Office in those matters of special importance in which it intervenes and that due to its nature and relevance should know”.

The document, to which EL PERIÓDICO DE CATALUNYA has had access, has been signed by 16 of the 31 court prosecutors that make up the highest category of the career, including former general prosecutors Consuelo Madrigal and Maria Jose Segarrathe first appointed by a PP government and the second by Pedro Sánchez himself, in the previous legislature, considering it an attack on the independence of the public ministry.

The modification is included in the same amendments that will ensure Delgado’s incorporation to the highest prosecutor category once he leaves the Attorney General’s Office, which led to criticism from the opposition and from all prosecutors’ associations, except the Progressive Union of Prosecutors, to which Delgado belonged to until she was appointed Minister of Justice.

The brief affirms that “the establishment of an obligation for the State Attorney General consisting of informing the Government, even on his own initiative, about matters of special importance that, due to their nature and relevance, he must know unequivocally represents a strengthening of the relationship of dependency of the Attorney General of the State with respect to the Governmentand with it the institution itself, as well as a significant breakdown of autonomy and independence with respect to thatwhich is absolutely incompatible with the constitutional model of the public prosecutor’s office”.

In the opinion of the majority of the fiscal dome, “this new legal provision consecrates a privilege by virtue of which the executive power, beyond the criminal policy relations that it must maintain with the institution for the proper functioning of the administration of justice” , because “it would have extra-procedural access through the actions carried out by the public prosecutor’s office that would allow it to know first-hand the content of judicial procedures and especially sensitive investigations, particularly criminal ones, to which no one other than the parties to the process should have access, with the exception of the duty to inform public opinion for which the prosecutor is empowered in the terms provided for in article 4.5 of the “tax statute”.