Federico Trillo: "The amnesty represents the opening of a gap in the Constitution and the path towards a change of regime"

He highlights that there are "precedents" in Congress, such as a report from lawyers, which the PP may use in its appeal if the law is approved

MADRID, 8 Oct. (EUROPA PRESS) -

The jurist Federico Trillo, former president of Congress and former Minister of Defense, has assured that the amnesty is "unconstitutional" and represents the "opening of a gap" in the Magna Carta and the "path towards a change of political regime." Furthermore, he recalled that ERC and Junts already brought to Congress in March 2021 a proposal similar to the one they want to promote now and highlighted that then the PSOE supported the report of the Chamber's lawyers that prevented the debate of that Law. of Amnesty for illegal.

In statements to Europa Press, Trillo has admitted that this is a key "written precedent" that will serve the PP in its future parliamentary and judicial actions if the Amnesty Law that the Government of Pedro Sánchez is negotiating with the independentists. Furthermore, he has criticized the acting Executive for attempting to "force constitutional jurisprudence" by hiding behind supposed rulings of the Constitutional Court.

"Without a doubt, an amnesty is unconstitutional and Congress has said so in the last legislature," stressed the lawyer from the Council of State, alluding to the bill that the Catalan independentists registered in March 2021 -- no. was admitted for processing-- and the motion resulting from interpellation that the CUP promoted in May of that same year and that was rejected in the Plenary of Congress.

Trillo has highlighted the importance of these precedents and their parliamentary outcome. "Therefore, we must not convince anyone that amnesty is something that does not fit into the Constitution," he stressed, to underline that this was the opinion shared by the Socialist Party in the last legislature.

"The amnesty does not have any type of fit and means much more. It means the opening, not only of a gap in the Constitution but of a path towards a change of regime," he stated, to explain that the amnesty is a "mechanism made for the transition between two different political regimes".

Thus, he recalled that an amnesty was applied in 1931 with the proclamation of the Second Republic and that Francisco Franco approved a decree in September 1939. Later, he continued, the 1977 amnesty was approved so that "crimes of political intention would remain acquitted", before proceeding to draft the Constitution.

Trillo, who was a key legal actor in the resources promoted by Mariano Rajoy when he led the PP, has highlighted that, unlike the pardon, which is approved by decree, what is intended now is an Amnesty Law that "can be vetoed in the Senate by the absolute majority of the Popular Group".

Furthermore, he has assured that the preamble of the Amnesty Law that is to be approved will have "value" because there must be made explicit "not the legality, which is the text, but the legitimacy that drives the measure."

At this point, he has insisted that the precedents that have already been brought to Congress reflect that these initiatives are "absolutely contrary to the Constitution because they deny the crime." "They deny the criminal nature of sedition, they deny the crime of embezzlement, they even deny the nature of public disorder, they legitimize the actions of October 1 and subsequent ones, and they deny the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to judge and condemn and, in that case to bring in Puigdemont. He denies all of that, that is why it is unconstitutional," he added.

Trillo, who joined the Council of State as a senior lawyer in 2017, has described it as "unseemly" that the Government of Pedro Sánchez is seeking rulings from the TC to justify the fit of an amnesty. "It is forcing constitutional jurisprudence as some of its members probably intend to do in the future," he declared.

The former minister has indicated that, if this law is approved, he hopes that the PP will file an appeal and has added that the Constitutional Court chaired by Cándido Conde-Pumpido will have to rule on the filing of the case opened against Carles Puigdemont and others prosecuted by the 'procés'. Of course, he has said that the Supreme Court itself may raise a question of unconstitutionality before the TC.

The former minister has predicted that in the end there will be an agreement between the Government and the independentists regarding this Law because "those interested, all of them, see this as a unique opportunity." "Hunger comes together with the desire to eat. Everyone needs to seek an agreement," he stated.

Furthermore, he has criticized that Pedro Sánchez refers to coexistence in Catalonia. "I don't know how it can help coexistence in Catalonia that Puigdemont once again entangles Catalonia and denies the jurisdiction of the courts over disorders and seditions in Catalonia. I don't know what that fixes coexistence. Coexistence is maintained with the law Of course, not with the denial of the law," he stressed.

Specifically, ERC, Junts, the CUP and the PDeCAT registered a law in Congress in March 2021 to amnesty "all acts of political intention, whatever the result", from January 1, 2013, which would include, in addition to 1-O, to those convicted by the sovereignty consultation of November 9, 2014.

This initiative was not even admitted for processing because the lawyers of Congress warned that this law, by assuming a generalized pardon, "would enter into a clear and obvious contradiction" with the provisions of Article 62 of the Constitution, which prevents authorizing pardons. general.

Shortly after, in May 2021, the Plenary Session of Congress rejected, with the votes of PSOE, PP, Vox and Ciudadanos, a motion from the CUP, which Podemos did support, which requested including the referendum and amnesty on the table. dialogue about Catalonia. The pro-independence party tried to use its motion for the Plenary to rule in favor of admitting the Amnesty Law to processing, but in the end that part of the text was eliminated by the majority of the Board following the criteria of the Congress lawyers.