The TC places the 'Celaá law' in the "broad margin" of the legislator to design an educational model according to his ideology

It indicates as "essential" a "reasonable presence of Spanish and the co-official language as vehicular languages"

MADRID, 26 Abr. (EUROPA PRESS) -

The Constitutional Court (TC) has framed the so-called 'Celaá law' within the "broad margin" that the Magna Carta grants the legislator to design an educational model in accordance with its "ideological conception", as is clear from the sentence in which it rejects Vox's appeal and validates the legal norm, a ruling advanced on April 18 but that has been fully known this Wednesday.

This is how the TC expresses itself with regard to the blemishes formulated by Santiago Abascal's party on two specific issues, those that have to do with the obligation to offer sufficient vacancies exclusively with "public" vacancies and the prohibition on financing with public money to centers that segregate students by sex.

The court of guarantees is based on the premise of "the double dimension" of the right to education, as a guarantee of the "freedom to educate and educate oneself against political power" and as the "right to obtain a free education from the same power", to establish that "between these two perspectives there is no optimal constitutional balance", but that this "continuous tension" gives "the legislator the margin to configure the educational system".

In this sense, it affirms that "the programming of education with the objective of guaranteeing the existence of sufficient public places is a constitutionally legitimate aim" because "it falls within the margin of free configuration of the legislator and the political preferences expressed in the laws approved in The general courts".

Along the same lines, he recalls that "the Spanish Constitution (EC) provides for the existence of public 'aid' to private centers, although it refers its specification to the legislator." "The regulation of these aids falls, therefore, within the margin of freedom of configuration of the legislator", he declares.

The court reasons that "the pluralism of the educational model that derives from Article 27 CE, which is, in turn, a manifestation of political pluralism guaranteed by Article 1.1 CE, leaves a wide margin of freedom to the legislator so that he can configure a educational model in which pedagogical options of a very diverse nature fit, with the only requirement that they not be contrary to constitutionally enshrined rights".

From this he concludes that "the difference in treatment (...) between educational centers that separate students based on their gender, in order to be fully or partially financed by public funds, responds to an ideological conception of the educational system that , not only cannot be branded as arbitrary, but, moreover, it is inspired by constitutional values".

It adds that the fact that differentiated education by sex is constitutional "does not imply that the legislator has a constitutional duty to promote it, if he considers that there is another pedagogical model that is also in accordance with the Constitution and is better suited to the higher values ​​of the legal system legal".

"The EC grants a margin of freedom of configuration to the legislator so that, within the framework that the fundamental norm can establish its political options, which entails incorporating into the law its conceptions and the measures to guarantee that its provisions have real and effective efficacy ", sentence.

Consequently, it clarifies that "the legislator's decision to grant public aid only to centers that do not separate students based on their gender is a legitimate constitutional option", emphasizing that "the generic principle of equality does not postulate, neither as an end nor as a means, the parity and only requires the reasonableness of the normative difference in treatment".

On the other hand, it clears up Vox's constitutional reproach to the fact that the 'Celaá law' establishes the best interests of the child and the opinion of families who prefer an inclusive education as criteria to decide how students with special needs are educated. , that is, in ordinary centers.

And this because it understands that "the norm does not exclude from the procedure that has to be designed - in case of discrepancies that may arise in the schooling procedure for students with disabilities - the hearing of families who show their preference for special education nor does it attribute greater value to the opinion of certain families over others".

In addition, it emphasizes that "the application of the principle of educational inclusion obliges the administration to take into consideration, in each individual case, the best interest of the minor, above all, but also the material means and the environment in which it will actually take place." inclusion, as well as the will of the minor himself, if he has the necessary conditions and maturity to manifest it, and of his family".

The TC also addresses the sections of the 'Celaá law' in which the teaching of religion is contemplated and advises Vox that, if the voluntary nature of religious education is not respected, its inclusion as a subject or the comparable treatment with the other disciplines, as imposed by the agreement of Spain and the Holy See, there are "adequate means to remedy it": "But it cannot be done previously in this constitutionality appeal."

He explains to those from Santiago Abascal that, although the constitutional doctrine protects the right of religious communities to redefine the creed that is the object of teaching, "this does not translate into the existence of a fundamental right of confessions to determine the curriculum, the standards learning and textbooks and teaching materials".

On the other hand, it pronounces on the articles related to the contents of equality and gender perspective. Vox alleged that the 'Celaá law' violated the right of parents to have their children receive religious and moral information in accordance with their convictions by incorporating into public education what they called a "state ideology" or "partisan".

The TC considers that "there is nothing" in the new law that contravenes the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), according to which the right of parents "does not prevent states from disseminating, through teaching or education , information or knowledge that have, directly or not, religious or philosophical character".

It also stresses that "the gender perspective is mentioned among the pedagogical principles of compulsory secondary education and the baccalaureate, and is therefore addressed to administrations and educational centers, not to students to whom the legislator does not impose, therefore, any perspective or ideological adherence".

The TC also dismisses the part of Vox's appeal that questions the wording of the 'Celaá law' on the use of official languages ​​in the classroom, considering that having omitted the reference to Spanish being the "vehicular language of teaching in the entire State" --something that was only included in the 2013 law-- "cannot lead to a declaration of unconstitutionality.

He stresses that the 'Celaá law' does "recognize" the right of students to receive education in Spanish and the other co-official languages, highlighting that there are mandates that guarantee the constitutional right that "Spanish is not excluded as a vehicular language and that they respect the pattern of balance or equality between languages".

Regarding this, it points out that "a reasonable presence of Spanish and the co-official language as vehicular languages ​​in any circumstance is essential for this 'balance or equality' to exist between languages ​​and so that the 'right' to use them as vehicular languages ​​is not be reduced to an empty formula, but be maintained as a real and effective right".