The member of the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) Juan Manuel Fernández regretted this Thursday that the amnesty law draws “on wet paper” judicial decisions in the Catalan independence process, “affecting” the constitutional function of judges to ensure compliance with the law.
“If the decisions of the Judiciary remain a dead letter because of the will of other powers of the State, it is clear that affect the constitutional function that we have judges,” he said in an interview with Antena 3, as reported by Europa Press.
Fernández is one of the eight conservative members of the CGPJ who asked the interim president, Vicente Guilarte, to hold an extraordinary plenary session to show the Rejecting of the ruling body of judges to the future amnesty law that will benefit the promoters and participants of the ‘procés’, considering that this measure represents “damage, if not the elimination, of the Rule of Law in Spain.”
The member of the CGPJ indicated that the decisions of the judges “can only be voided” by an express declaration of the Constitutional Court or, in some rare cases, by the number of pardon granted by the Constitution.
“Some forms of cancellation produce consequences of particular relevance and gravity,” warns Fernández, who emphasizes that in democracy “must” the principle of separation of powers and the role of the Judiciary to ensure compliance with the legal system promoted by other powers.
The report “enhanced” the debate in parliament
Fernández considers it a “mistake” that the parties that negotiated the amnesty of the ‘procés’ (PSOE and Sumar with Junts and ERC) are expected to process it as a bills, which does not require a prior report from advisory bodies such as the CGPJ, instead of through a bill, where it is required.
“It requires a first report from the advisory bodies of the State because of its consequences,” explained the member and magistrate, adding that the previous reports are important because “improving the debate in parliament”.
He specified that a report “does not refer to the sovereignty of the Legislative Branch for the interpretation of laws”, but it enriches the process, he repeated, before remembering that they are not binding.
For the member “it was a mistake” not to request such a report and he rejected this request for an extraordinary plenary session of the CGPJ on amnesty “EXTEMPORANEOUS”, justifying that they are asking for it now because it is already known that the law will be processed. he argued.
In his opinion, the opinion of the CGPJ, the Council of State or the Prosecutor’s Office is “important”, because it is something where “a majority consensus and legal opinions of all kinds.” “I’m very sorry it wasn’t done,” he assured.
Fernández denied that the interim position of the CGPJ, which is about to complete its five-year expired mandate, prevents the body from using its functionsamong them are those who defend the judges and the rule of law, he said.