The General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) must leave its response statement to the criticism of the judges of many politicians in a minimum declaration, to achieve its unanimous approval. In a three-hour plenary session, the governing body of the judiciary reduced its first proposals to answer the accusations of prevarication and lawfare (judicial war or judicialization of politics) received by many judges in the debate on the amnesty law, and They have reduced their response to the request that the parliamentarians express their points of view “avoiding disqualifications.” The decrease in response is due to the refusal of progressive members to support any statement that implies, as made in the request to convene the extraordinary plenary session, direct criticism of the president of the Congress, Francina Armengol (PSOE). In the initial petition of the plenary session, however, Armengol was ridiculed for his “agreement” in the face of criticisms and disqualifications directed by judges such as Manuel García-Castellón and Joaquín Aguirre, teachers of Tsunami Democratic and Voloh cases about the alleged connection to Russia in the proceedings.
Similarly, the plenary session rejected the proposal to make a new change in the permanent commission of the Council. The initiative included in the agenda has as its objective that Pilar Sepúlveda – proposed as a member of the PSOE – will be replaced by Enrique Lucas – proposed by the PNV – but it only got seven votes in favor, with three -abtention and six against. This result shows that the conservative bloc was not able to maintain the nine votes in favor of this change to force the convening of the extraordinary plenary session of the Council.
The declaration was negotiated and approved after several successive reductions in the content of the answers that the conservatives wanted to say to the PSOE and the pro-independence forces recognized in its first point that the deputies enjoyed “inviolability” their representation function and their demonstrations. . The text adds, in any case, that this right “does not reduce the seriousness of his actions”, without mentioning the names of any of the deputies involved in the debate on the amnesty law.
Nor is any name mentioned in the second point of the declaration, where it is emphasized that the members of the Council “we strongly reject certain appearances and behavior made by the members of the Legislative Branch, at the same time that we stated that we will. continue to defend the independence of the Branch.” Judicial residence of each of the Spanish judges.” The statement avoided mentioning the president of Congress when it added that “respect for the independence of the Judiciary must be ensured in the course of parliamentary interventions, avoiding those disqualification that undermines citizens’ confidence in the judicial system.”
In the third point, the philosophy of the Consultative Council of European Judges is cited in the sense that “the evaluations and criticisms of a State power towards other powers must be formed in a climate of mutual respect” and that “there is a clear difference between freedom of expression and legitimate criticism, on the one hand, and lack of respect and undue pressure on the judiciary, on the other hand.’ Also in this section, any mention of the precise names of the parliamentarians is avoided and only an exhortation is chosen without indicating the specific recipients. The fourth and last point of the declaration is limited to repeating that judicial independence “is a key piece of the Rule of Law and its defense is essential within the framework of values on which the European Union is based and its protection is equal to all. the Power of the State.”