Congress will reject as "inadmissible" the conflict raised by the Senate over the amnesty law

The lawyers emphasize that the Board cannot withdraw a law that the Plenary has already voted on: it would be to recognize "exorbitant power"

MADRID, 15 Abr. (EUROPA PRESS) -

Congress is going to reject as "inadmissible" the conflict of powers put forward by the Senate on account of the Amnesty Law, and the legal services of the Lower House emphasize that there is no channel for the Board chaired by Francina Armengol to withdraw a law that has been processed and approved in the Plenary.

With the absolute majority of the PP, the Senate sent a request to Congress to withdraw the Amnesty Law and, although the Lower House had until May to respond, the Board will approve its response this Tuesday in accordance with the arguments of the legal services and will be negative, as parliamentary sources confirm to Europa Press.

In their report, Congressional lawyers emphasize that the Lower House has exercised its powers "in the constitutionally and legally established terms," ​​and that now it is the turn of the Senate, in accordance with the powers granted to it by the Constitution.

In his opinion, "under the guise of defending its powers, the Senate cannot attempt to subvert those legitimately exercised by Congress in the legislative procedure," and he warns that the approach to the conflict by the Upper House " "It would be an artifice to avoid fulfilling its constitutional obligation and supplanting Congress."

Relying on rulings from the TC, the legal services emphasize that the votes that occur in the Chamber within the framework of the legislative procedure "are not an ideal object" of a conflict of powers, and that if the Senate understands that the usurpation of its powers is occurred when the Congress Board admitted the controversial PSOE bill for processing in November, it should have presented that conflict then, but now it is "out of time" because the 30 days established by the Constitution for appeal.

In any case, the Congressional lawyers reaffirm their initial report from November, which endorsed the processing of the legislative initiative, alleging that any constitutionality doubts that may exist were not so "obvious" as to veto it, ignoring the right of parliamentarians to discuss it. . In his opinion, declaring the unconstitutionality of an initiative is not the job of the Congressional Board or its counterpart in the Senate, but of the Constitutional Court itself.

Nor does it accept the Senate's argument that it should have been treated as a constitutional reform because the TC requires that these types of initiatives must contain an alternative article to the Magna Carta, and there was none.

And he sees it as a "clear interference" that the Senate questions the constitutionality of the parliamentary processing of the initiative in Congress or compliance with the regulatory norms: "The function of controlling how Congress has applied its Regulations corresponds, where appropriate, to the TC , the Senate cannot assume oversight functions of other constitutional bodies," they emphasize.

Thus, the lawyers indicate that "there is no regulatory channel" that allows the Congressional Committee to paralyze an initiative that is being processed, as the Senate claims: "Such a claim, which would again be unprecedented, would imply recognizing a exorbitant power to the Board of the Chamber," they maintain.

The report provided to the Board and collected by Europa Press concludes that "the conflict raised is inadmissible because it refers to decisions that do not constitute the proper object of a conflict of powers but, where appropriate, of an appeal for unconstitutionality."

With all this, and given the majority that the PSOE and Sumar have in the governing body of the Chamber, the Congress Board will respond negatively to the Senate's request for withdrawal and will advise the Upper House to desist from the conflict of powers. .