The TC paralyzed the parliamentary process considering that the "constitutional margins" were exceeded

Remember that the Cortes are not exempt from "subordination to the Constitution"

MADRID, 28 Dic. (EUROPA PRESS) -

The Constitutional Court (TC) agreed to urgently paralyze the parliamentary processing of the two amendments seeking to modify the election system of candidates for the court appointed by the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) considering that its "responsibility "is" to limit the ability of the legislator to act when it exceeds the constitutional margins.

This is stated in the order that has been released this Wednesday, which includes the arguments for which the court agreed on December 19 to estimate the very precautionary measures that the PP claimed in its appeal against amendments 61 and 62 included in the bill that proposed repealing the crime of sedition.

In 29 pages, the court argues that "the express will of the constituent" places him as the "ultimate guarantor of the constitutionally established balance of powers, thus including the possibility of limiting the legislator's ability to act when it exceeds the constitutional margins (... .) in the exercise of its inalienable constitutional responsibility".

Thus, it indicates that "the legislator is responsible for respecting the material and formal limits of the constitutional text" and that the Constitutional Court is responsible for "controlling, in its function of supreme interpreter, compliance with these limits."

In line, the court recalls that "the centrality of the General Courts in our constitutional State does not mean that the exercise of their powers is exempt or released from subordination to the Constitution."

In this sense, it stresses that the Magna Carta "normatively presides over the actions of all public powers and, significantly, that of the one who assumes the representation of national sovereignty."

Within the framework of the order, in addition to ruling on the admission of the PP's appeal, the Plenary advises that the processing of the amendments promoted by the PSOE and United We Can affect the Constitution.

It ensures that the issue raised in the appeal "transcends the mere prosecution of the violation of the right of political participation of the appellants", since it considers that "the incorporation of amendments 61 and 62 undoubtedly affects the block of constitutionality".

The court points out that with these amendments "the rules for the appointment of Constitutional Court magistrates are at stake and the renewal system itself established in the Constitution and consequently the constitutional jurisdiction itself is modified."

And he maintains that if the processing of said amendments had gone ahead, the rights of the PP deputies would be violated.

Under this premise, the TC agreed --6 votes against 5-- to estimate the very precautionary measures that the PP demanded in its appeal against amendments 61 and 62 --promoted by the PSOE and Unidas Podemos-- which were included in the proposal for law that proposed repealing the crime of sedition.

It was the first time, in its more than 40-year history, that the Constitutional Order urgently suspended a parliamentary debate in the Cortes Generales. The Senate voted on the bill that repeals sedition, but did so without the amendments that the PP appealed.

In its order, the court concludes that the progress of the parliamentary processing of said amendments caused damage that was difficult to repair to the "popular" legislators, who invoked article 23 of the Constitution, which includes the right to political participation of the citizens through their representatives.

As specified, "the speed" of the table of the Justice Commission in the parliamentary process "prevented" the deputies of the PP from deliberating on the amendments and expressing their opinion.

In this sense, the Constitutional Court ensures that the precautionary measure adopted "did not cause a serious disturbance to a constitutionally protected interest", nor to the fundamental rights or freedoms of other parliamentary groups. Thus, he defends that his decision to paralyze the processing of the amendments conforms to the "canon of proportionality."

According to the Plenary session, there is a "special constitutional significance" in the appeal of the PP because "the question raised is of relevant and general social repercussion that, in addition, has general political consequences."

In addition, the court relies on the fact that the Organic Law that governs it "does not limit or circumscribe the scope of the measures that it can adopt" to "guarantee the effectiveness of a fundamental right."

On the sidelines, the Plenary also pronounces on the request of United We Can remove two of the magistrates of the court from the deliberation on the appeal of the PP.

In his order, he states "the challenges raised are unfounded and therefore are not admitted for processing." According to him, the reasons for making this request "appear completely disconnected" from the resource; that is to say, "the violation of the right of the deputies" of the PP.

In his opinion, "it is clear" that the challenged magistrates --Pedro González-Trevijano and Antonio Narváez--, who will cease their functions once the court is renewed, "do not have any direct or indirect interest in the present appeal of protection".

In line, the Plenary emphasizes that the challenges have been raised "only" with respect to two of the four magistrates whose mandate has expired and who will be dismissed after the partial renewal of the body. In this sense, he considers that the request has an "abusive nature" and that therefore it should be "inadmissible".

The decision of the Plenary has had the individual votes of the five magistrates of the progressive wing who voted against it on December 19.