Podemos asks to remove two magistrates to resolve the Senate's appeal against the suspension of the parliamentary debate

If your request is successful, the balance of forces in the TC will change in favor of the current progressive minority

Unidas Podemos (UP) has presented this Wednesday two writings in the Constitutional Court (TC) where it joins the appeal of the Senate, with which it seeks to lift the suspension of the debate and the vote in this legislative headquarters on the two amendments to to renew the TC itself, at the same time that it has asked to separate the president of the TC, Pedro González-Trevijano, and magistrate Antonio Narváez from the study of the challenge made by the Upper House.

The 'purple' formation urges the abstention of both magistrates and, in the event that they do not voluntarily withdraw, formulates a challenge against them expressly asking that this issue be resolved before addressing the Senate's appeal.

It also demands that González-Trevijano and Narváez not participate "in the session in which it is decided on the admission or rejection" of the recusal incident.

UP reiterates that both magistrates have a "direct interest" in maintaining the very precautionary suspension of the parliamentary processing of both amendments because, if approved, they would be immediately replaced by the two candidates for the TC that the Government appointed on November 29: the former minister of Justice Juan Carlos Campo and the former high office of Moncloa Laura Díez.

"In this way, the entry into force of the norm currently in parliamentary processing (...) would imply a direct and transcendent affectation of the personal, patrimonial and professional sphere of the magistrates" challenged, maintains United We Can.

The 'purples' point to two precedents in the TC itself to reinforce their argument. Thus, they recall that in 2007 the then president and vice president of the court, María Emilia Casas and Guillermo Jiménez, abstained when the guarantee court had to study an article that kept them in their respective positions.

"It is not possible to deny that the fate of the process could have a direct and immediate impact on their singular and exclusive situation, thus existing objective data that could be perceived by society, according to the abstained magistrates as the basis for their abstention, as an 'appearance of loss of impartiality'", exposed then the TC.

UP mentions a second precedent, when in 2020 the magistrates Juan Antonio Xiol and Alfredo Montoya abstained "as a consequence of the possible patrimonial affectation that the decision to adopt in relation to the Tax on the Increase in Value of Nature Land could cause them. Urban (Goodwill)". "Much less affectation than the one that is put on the table in the present writing and that, nevertheless, the Chamber understood enough," emphasizes Podemos.

The formation led by Ione Belarra also cites abundant jurisprudence from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) to conclude that, according to the Strasbourg court, "appearances are important because of the confidence that the Courts must inspire in society in general".

The party ensures that the recusals are not due to "a desire to capriciously alter the composition of the court, but to enforce the law and our jurisprudence and protect this Constitutional Court from discredit before our society, and in the international arena, which supposes the resolution of this case by those who suffer from a clearly lost appearance of impartiality".

CHANGE OF MAJORITIES IN THE COURT

However, if the request of the 'purple' is admitted, it would change the balance of forces in the Constitutional. Currently, there is a conservative majority of 6 magistrates, including González-Trevijano and Narváez, and a progressive minority of 5, so that, if removed, the latter could prevail over the former.

It should be remembered that during the extraordinary plenary session --of more than 9 hours-- held last Monday, the Constitutional Court agreed by 6 votes to 5 to accept the very precautionary measures requested by the PP in its amparo appeal against the amendments --included in the bill that repeals the crime of sedition-- by which the system of election and arrival of the two candidates to the TC appointed by the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) is modified

Then, UP also raised the recusal of González-Trevijano and Narváez, but the Constitutional Court --by that same majority-- resolved that it was not the opportune procedural moment to deal with them and postponed the debate on the merits of this matter.

Podemos now emphasizes that "the legal procedural relationship is already correctly established and, ultimately, it is also so for the purposes of formulating the pertinent allegations", including the recusals.

VIEWS THE "INTERFERENCE" OF THE CT IS IMPROPER

On the sidelines, Unidas Podemos defends that the suspension of the processing of the parliamentary initiative "represents a serious disturbance of a constitutionally protected interest, as well as the right to participate in the legislative initiative of the remaining deputies and, in this venue, of all the senators and senators".

The 'purples' consider "evident" the "inadmissibility of an interference" through amparo appeals in a legislative procedure not yet concluded, in view of the fact that in the pending phases in the Senate "any alleged deficit of constitutionality of the norm could be corrected ".

Unidas Podemos assures that the "claim" to "artificially extend" from Congress to the Senate the request to suspend the parliamentary process in a very precautionary manner "disnaturalizes the claim under amparo." Hence, in his opinion, said "claim" should be "rejected outright."

Thus, the party has stressed that the very precautionary measure, "far from respecting the limits that the law imposes on the Constitutional Court, ends up pulverizing the fundamental rights of a vast majority of deputies and senators."

The formation shows its opposition to the very precautionary measure agreed last Monday. He insists that this supposes "de facto" an "anticipated" protection when the bill --and the amendments that are appealed-- is in a phase of "limited knowledge."

ACCUSES THE PP OF BEING "VERY INCONGRUENT"

Apart from that, the signatories consider that it is "highly incongruous" that the PP has not included in its appeal for amparo amendments 55, 56, 58, 59 and 60, relating to the modification of certain regulatory provisions, including the Organic Law of Power Judicial, whose object, among other issues, was the declaration of non-working procedural periods during Christmas.

In this sense, Unidas Podemos indicates that what the PP intends with its appeal and the request for very precautionary measures is "to circumvent the doctrine of the Constitutional Court itself, according to which the suspension of the appealed state law can in no way be agreed". .

In line, he assures that the 'popular' want to achieve "what the legislator wanted to prevent by repealing the previous appeal of unconstitutionality, that is, the unwanted intervention in the legislative formation procedure even before the parliamentary will has been definitively configured " .