The Plenary of the TC starts to decide if it admits the appeal of the PP to stop the reform that seeks to renew the court

It starts late because the magistrates asked for time to study the appeal of the PP and the writings of PSOE, Podemos and Vox

MADRID, 15 Dic. (EUROPA PRESS) -

The extraordinary plenary session of the Constitutional Court (TC) set for this Thursday begins three hours late, in which the magistrates will decide whether or not to admit the appeal of the PP in which it is requested to paralyze in a very precautionary manner the parliamentary processing of the amendments for the that the system of election and arrival at the TC of the two candidates nominated by the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) is modified in order to overcome the current paralysis.

The plenary session, scheduled for 10:00 a.m., begins late because the magistrates asked for time to study both the PP's appeal for protection and the rest of the writings --from other parliamentary groups-- that have been arriving in recent hours, although in Initially, the delay has occurred because the conservative bloc has held an internal meeting that had not yet finished at the set time.

Specifically, the main reason for this delay is that in the last hours the parliamentary groups of PSOE and Unidas Podemos have requested the court to have them as persons and reject suspending the parliamentary process, warning that, otherwise, will affect the rights of the deputies and the citizens they represent.

Unidas Podemos has gone a step further and has asked to separate the president of the Constitutional Court, Pedro González-Trevijano, and vice president Antonio 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.

Before the debate scheduled in plenary, the lawyers of the guarantee body have issued contradictory reports, both for and against, on the very precautionary measures requested by the PP.

The court sources 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 various reports have been issued in different directions.

These reports will serve the magistrates for the deliberation and voting that the plenary is expected to carry out based on a presentation that has fallen on Enrique Arnaldo, whose lawyer has advocated paralyzing the parliamentary process, according to the aforementioned sources.

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.

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.

In addition, they 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 are the aspirants chosen 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.

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.