Vox sues Gómez de Celis for removing Rueda from speaking in Congress, who called Bildu "filoetarras"

MADRID, 3 Ene. (EUROPA PRESS) -

Vox has filed a complaint for prevarication with the Supreme Court against the first vice president of Congress, Alfonso Rodríguez Gómez de Celis, for withdrawing the floor of deputy Patricia Rueda during a debate, after she referred to EH Bildu as "filoetarras". .

Gómez de Celis presided over the debate on the non-legal proposal on support for Malaga's Spanish candidacy to host the 2027 International Exhibition 'The Urban Era: towards the sustainable city' on November 29 when the national deputy secretary of Vox Spokesperson, in rostrum, took advantage of his turn to ensure that the Government of Pedro Sánchez "none" Málaga and "rewards filoetarras, nationalists and coup leaders".

The also Socialist deputy for Seville asked the deputy to withdraw the term, but the deputy refused and was called to order on successive occasions, after which the acting president chose to take the floor asking him to vacate the rostrum, while Rueda He pointed out that it was "unfair". The incident caused the Vox deputies to rise from their seats and loudly leave the chamber, in protest.

The document, presented by Vox's National Legal Vice-Secretary, under the direction of Marta Castro, denounces the "absolute lack of justification for the decision in terms of mandatory neutrality, respect for constitutional principles and parliamentary freedom of expression" of Gomez de Celis.

On the other hand, the letter claims the obligation of the Congress Table to represent all citizens equally, since it is a collegiate body where all political groups appear, according to a statement from those of Santiago Abascal. Thus, "any decision that is adopted must be free of arbitrariness, ideological bias or particular interests, since it must treat all representatives of citizens equally and apply the acquis and constitutional principles in all its actions."

In addition, it censors the use of "inappropriate, irrelevant, untenable and unbearable comparisons between Vox and Bildu", which "could be the subject of a separate criminal analysis, as long as it was not protected by freedom of political expression, which It was biased towards the Vox deputy and to which parliamentarians like the defendant accept with impunity, when it comes to insults, offenses against the formation".

For all these reasons, the formation requests the High Court to question Gómez de Celis, to link the actions to the documents provided by Vox and to open an official letter to determine the veracity of the links provided by the National Legal Vice-Secretary.

Vox recalls that, in parliament, it has already been exposed that the acting president's actions were "abusive" for limiting "unduly" the exercise of the deputy of the functions inherent to the core of her function, as well as "unjustified" because the budgets for the application of article 103 of the Regulation and for the withdrawal of the floor were not given. Along these lines, they also point out that it was contrary to the doctrine of own acts and the principles of predictability and legal certainty.

Likewise, it was also requested that "any decisions be agreed upon to ensure that the actions of said Presidency are adopted in a non-arbitrary, equitable manner and respecting the core of the representative function of the deputies, guaranteeing them the free and full exercise of the fundamental rights that correspond to them constitutionally".

Those of Santiago Abascal regret that, at the time of filing the complaint before the Supreme Court, the Presidency of Congress has not given any response to this request.