The Constitutional Court will decide tomorrow if it admits the appeal of the PP to stop the reform that seeks to renew the court

The recusal raised by Podemos in the TC opens a way for the reform promoted by the Government to be approved

MADRID, 18 Dic. (EUROPA PRESS) -

The Constitutional Court (TC) will hold an extraordinary plenary session tomorrow to address the amparo appeal presented by the PP where it asks to suspend the parliamentary processing of two amendments by which the system of election and arrival at the TC itself of the two corresponding candidates is reformed appoint the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ), a suspension that could be circumvented if the magistrates decide to debate the challenges launched by United We Can (UP).

The eleven magistrates of the TC are summoned at 10:00 a.m. on Monday for an extraordinary plenary session that includes in its agenda the deliberation and vote on the admission to processing of the "popular" appeal and the very precautionary measures demanded by the political party to prevent that the reform is approved next Thursday in the Senate.

According to the legal sources consulted, the six magistrates of the conservative majority are inclined to give free rein to the suspension of parliamentary processing, although some voices warn that there are "different enthusiasms", while the five magistrates of the progressive majority do not see with good eyes the interference in the Legislative Power.

The sources point out that the debate could be located in the recusals raised by UP against the president of the TC, Pedro González-Trevijano, and the magistrate Antonio Narváez -both located in the majority bloc--. The 'purple' party believes that they have a "direct interest" because they would be the two magistrates replaced by the two candidates nominated by the Government - the former minister Juan Carlos Campo and the former high office of Moncloa Laura Díez - if the reform remains approved.

And this is because, if González-Trevijano and Narváez do not withdraw voluntarily, a recusal motion is opened that has a suspensive effect on the entire procedure until it is resolved, for which there is a specific procedure that contemplates deadlines of several days, a parenthesis during which it would give time for the Senate to approve in its plenary session next Thursday the bill that eliminates sedition and all its amendments, including those two.

Consequently, challenges have become the main trump card to get Parliament to approve the reform before the Constitutional Court can avoid it. But, to reach this scenario, the sources stress that two conditions must be met: that the Plenary agree to debate the 'purple' request to remove González-Trevijano and Narváez, and that it do so before analyzing the very precautionary measures.

In this situation, the first stumbling block is the order of the day. It does not include the issue of challenges, so that, in the event that the progressive magistrates consider dealing with them, the decision would fall to González-Trevijano as president. In this regard, the sources recall that, although the custom is to respect the majority feeling, it does not really bind him, so he can decide what he considers appropriate.

With this resolved, the second hurdle would be when to discuss it. Some sources maintain that the issue of challenges should be addressed after resolving the admission of the 'popular' appeal and before debating the suspension of the parliamentary process. However, others understand that the especially urgent nature of the very precautionary measures is sufficient reason to resolve them before discussing the challenges.

To this, some sources add that the request to remove González-Trevijano and Narváez is made in a letter where United We Can request to appear in person -the same request that the PSOE has made in its own letter-, for which they maintain that until the TC resolves the question of appearance, neither of them are part of the procedure and it would not be possible to study the claims they make, including the challenges.

In addition, they emphasize that the Organic Law of the Constitutional Court (LOTC) supports the suspension, in whole or in part, of the effects of the appealed decisions "as long as (...) it does not cause serious disturbance to a constitutionally protected interest, nor to the fundamental rights or freedoms of another person".

In line, they emphasize that in its more than 40 years of history the TC has never prevented discussion and voting in the Cortes Generales, so it would be an unprecedented measure that - they allege - would cause a "serious disturbance" due to interference in the Legislative Power and the affectation of the rights of the rest of the deputies and of the citizens they represent.

However, the sources admit that the number of factors that could end up influencing the final decision makes it difficult to foresee what it will be, so everything will depend on how the debate between the magistrates runs.

It should be remembered that the Congress of Deputies approved the bill with its amendments last Thursday after the president of the TC chose to suspend the extraordinary plenary session of that day and call another one for this Monday.

According to sources from the court of guarantees, it did so after the five progressive magistrates threatened not to deliberate or vote, if they were not given more time to study a matter of great "complexity" and "relevance" that they had barely heard about. 24 hours before. If they had left, they would have prevented the 'quorum' of at least 8 magistrates that is required for the Plenary to be validly constituted.