The institutional statement against the amnesty approved at an extraordinary meeting of the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) convened at the request of eight of the conservative members is one more, but perhaps the most relevant, of theThe actions undertaken by the right, not only the political ones, against the law that Pedro Sánchez is negotiating with Carles Puigdemont and has already agreed with ERC. It’s about a preventive pronouncement against a norm whose scope is not yet known nor content, but that part of the judiciary feels in a position to describe as “the abolition of the rule of law in Spain” (the majority conservative sector of the CGPJ) or as “the beginning of the end” of democracy (the Professional Association of the bench). This action has, however, a more serious significance. It means in practice an attempt to interfere in the autonomy of the legislative branch, which is the one who must approve the law where appropriate and who is responsible for deciding on the investiture of the President of the Government.
The apocalyptic terms used by conservative judges are in sync with those used by the leaders of the PP and Vox, who have also called for a series of preventive mobilizations, that they already know that they will not stop the law and that therefore they are not prophylactic but simply the beginning of a fierce campaign against Sánchez and the next Government. An opposition effort that will be even harsher than that experienced in the last legislature.
These initiatives have been joined by that of the judge of the National Court Manuel García Castellón, who directs the investigation into the actions of the platform Democratic Tsunami against Puigdemont and against the general secretary of ERC, Marta Rovira, for a possible crime of terrorism. This action, undertaken in the midst of negotiations, would seek to prevent the measure of grace.
It is true that The PSOE has also fallen into the error of demanding pronouncements with closed eyes, that has asked its bases to vote on an agreement whose wording they still do not know. The majority support of the militancy is still an act of faith in their leader and an example of how the internal life of the parties and the power of their leaders is now developing.
What is surprising, however, about the CGPJ initiative is that it is adopted a judicial body that ended its mandate five years ago and which is, therefore, in an interim situation that calls into question its legitimacy. Not only because progressive magistrates such as those of Judges for Democracy consider that the declaration on the amnesty of that institution represents an abuse of the legal powers held by its members and “an invasion of the exclusive function of the constitutionality trial that only the “Constitutional Court corresponds.” Also because it is those same councilors who have supported the PP’s blockade of its renewal (or at least they have not rebelled against it). On occasions like these, it is clear that behind the decision not to renew the CGPJ, beyond the twenty justifications that the popular ones have given, lies the intention of maintaining a majority that allows them to use the institution as a battering ram against the Executive.