TC lawyers issue contradictory reports on the PP's request to stop the court reform

The challenges raised by Podemos against two conservative magistrates could paralyze the procedure

MADRID, 15 Dic. (EUROPA PRESS) -

The lawyers of the Constitutional Court (TC) have issued contradictory reports, both in favor and against, in relation to the very precautionary measures requested by the PP to stop the parliamentary processing of the reform of the TC itself, in view of the extraordinary plenary session scheduled for this same Thursday and whose start has been delayed due to the new writings presented by PSOE, United We Can (UP) and Vox.

The sources of the court of guarantees consulted by Europa Press explain that each of the 11 magistrates --six conservatives and five progressives-- who currently make up the Constitutional Court has its own lawyer, which is why several reports have been issued in different directions. .

These reports will serve the magistrates for the deliberation and vote that the plenary is expected to carry out to decide whether to admit the amparo appeal presented yesterday by the PP and, above all, if the very precautionary measures raised therein are accepted.

The Plenary has been delayed -it was set for 10:00 a.m.- because the magistrates have requested time to study both the PP's appeal for protection and the rest of the writings that have been arriving in the last hours, although initially the delay It has occurred because the conservative block has held an internal meeting that at 10:00 had not yet finished.

However, the main reason is that in the last few hours the parliamentary groups of PSOE and Unidas Podemos have asked the Constitutional Court to take them as individuals and refuse to suspend the parliamentary process, warning that, otherwise, the rights of deputies and the citizens they represent.

Unidas Podemos has gone a step further by asking to remove González-Trevijano and Narváez from the deliberation of the PP's appeal, considering that they have a conflict of interest because, if said reform is approved, they would be replaced by the new magistrates appointed by the Government. The sources warn that this challenge could paralyze the procedure in the TC.

Vox has also made a move and has joined the PP by presenting another amparo appeal where it also requests the Constitutional Court to suspend the parliamentary processing of said amendments.

It is the first time that the Constitutional Court holds an extraordinary plenary session of this type to decide whether or not to suspend a parliamentary process of a bill in the Congress of Deputies. If the very precautionary measures claimed by the PP were admitted, it would be an unprecedented event in the 40-year history of the court.

From the court they have explained that in this plenary session "it will be resolved on the admission to processing of the amparo appeal and, where appropriate, on the very precautionary measures requested" by the deputies of the PP, a presentation that has fallen on the magistrate Enrique Arnaldo.

The TC had already advanced that it would convene a plenary session urgently after the PP presented an appeal for amparo yesterday Wednesday against what the general secretary of the PP, Cuca Gamarra, has described as an "attack" by the Government on the Judiciary.

The appeal is directed against the agreement of the Bureau of the Justice Commission adopted last Monday, which admitted --among others-- the partial amendments number 61 and 62 raised by the PSOE and Unidas Podemos within the framework of the bill that repeals the crime of sedition.

In these amendments, the PSOE and Unidas Podemos propose going from a three-fifths majority -which now requires at least 11 votes- to a simple one for the CGPJ to designate its two candidates for the TC and that, in the event that the The governing body of the judges continues to fail in its obligation to send two candidates to the Constitutional Court, their members can be held criminally responsible.

They also contemplate that, instead of each of the 18 members proposing and voting for two candidates, they propose and vote for only one, which -according to the CGPJ sources consulted by Europa Press- will guarantee that the two most voted for be the applicants elected by each block of the Council (the progressive and the conservative). This is, in the case of the progressives: the magistrate of the Supreme Court (TS) José Manuel Bandrés.

In its appeal, the PP also points to the agreement adopted last Tuesday by the president of the Justice Commission, Felipe Sicilia, by which he decided not to convene the Board of said commission to resolve the reconsideration that the "popular" urged against the Agreement to admit both amendments.

In addition to requesting that the two agreements be annulled, the PP requests as a very precautionary measure that the admission for processing of the two amendments be suspended, regardless of the moment in which the legislative initiative is found.

This Thursday the Congress of Deputies is scheduled to hold a plenary session where the bill is expected to be approved --with its amendments--, so that on December 22 the Senate will do the same. Gamarra had urged the TC to pronounce itself before tomorrow's parliamentary debate.

PSOE and Unidas Podemos introduced these amendments after the negotiations within the CGPJ to name their two candidates for the TC ran aground on December 2, due to the tacit veto of the conservative bloc nominated by the progressive members --the magistrate of the Supreme Court (TS) José Manuel Bandrés-- and the refusal of the latter to return to fatten their list of applicants (which came to have nine).

As a consequence, the progressive members now advocate waiting for the new system to be approved in the Cortes Generales to vote with it now, while the conservative bloc has launched two candidates --the also magistrates of the TS César Tolosa and Pablo Lucas-- to try to avoid this reform, in what supposes an exchange of roles regarding the positions that the two currents of the CGPJ maintained until now.

In a statement, the PP has explained that the reason for its appeal is that it considers that "fraudulent use of parliamentary procedures" has been made, due to the "lack of connection" of the amendments with the bill, to give way free to some modifications that are "manifestly unconstitutional".

"The amendments represent an attack on the separation of powers and a serious breach of the rule of law, as well as being indisputably incompatible with the Constitution", have indicated the 'popular'.

Likewise, they have advanced that this amparo remedy does not prevent that, "at the appropriate procedural moment", the PP can also challenge the parliamentary processing of the bill and the new rule if it is finally approved.