1 week Ago By Ot Serra
The Constitutional Court is seeking legitimacy three months before issuing a ruling on the amnesty. And the court's president, Cándido Conde-Pumpido, did so this Monday in an unusual format: invited by the Ateneo de Madrid, he gave a speech and answered questions from journalists to assert that "questioning the Constitutional Court is questioning the Constitution and the democratic system." Conde-Pumpido's idea is for the ruling on the PP's appeal to arrive before the summer, a "reasonable" timeframe, he said, given that the law came into force in July 2024.
Thus, the TC would rule a year later. "It's a good appeal, well-argued, and we want to respond with a well-reasoned and well-founded ruling. To uphold what is appropriate and reject what is appropriate," Conde-Pumpido emphasized, thus opening the door to a ruling that doesn't fully address the PP's complaint.
However, it is assumed that the progressive majority of the body will prevail and overwhelmingly endorse an amnesty law that the Supreme Court is reluctant to apply. In fact, the criminal chamber is still waiting to rule on Carles Puigdemont's appeal, which prevents him from seeking protection before the Constitutional Court. The president of the Constitutional Court has refrained from predicting what the Supreme Court will do once the ruling is issued.
The main hypothesis is that judges Manuel Marchena and Pablo Llarena will continue to refuse to amnesty the leaders of the Process and turn to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). "I cannot answer hypothetical questions," Conde-Pumpido excused himself. However, it is assumed that the Supreme Court will do the same as the Seville Court with the Andalusian ERE case, a "controversial matter," in the words of the president of the Constitutional Court himself.
Rather, it is a , because for the first time, a criminal court that disagrees with a ruling by the highest interpreter of the Constitution delays its application by appealing to Luxembourg. In recent days, there has been an internal debate within the Constitutional Court over whether the body can and should overrule any preliminary ruling that the Seville Court may submit to the CJEU, but Conde-Pumpido has made it clear that it will not do so. "The Constitutional Court's organic law establishes that we have the obligation to defend our own jurisdiction and ensure the effective enforcement of rulings (.
..) But it does not affect the approach to the preliminary ruling.
This is a relationship between the Seville Court and the CJEU," he emphasized. This issue is scheduled to be debated in the plenary session of the court of guarantees this week, and, according to the president of the Constitutional Court, everything indicates that no obstacles will be placed in the way of the Andalusian court's maneuver. It remains to be seen, therefore, how the Constitutional Court intends to ensure that its rulings are "effective.
" Be that as it may, Count Pumpido lamented that in recent days there have been "parallel judgments" regarding the deliberations that have taken place within the organization. "Very powerful forces and currents of opinion." The progressive sector of politics and the judiciary believes that a climate of discrediting the Constitutional Court, and its president in particular, has been created to discredit the eventual endorsement of the amnesty.
The Supreme Court would be a relevant player. Conde-Pumpido did not deny this and asserted that he is "very concerned" about this situation because "questioning the legitimacy of issuing rulings that subject public powers is questioning the democratic system." "We must confront very powerful forces and currents of opinion, because they represent political, economic, or media powers that have an interest in preserving a law we have declared unconstitutional, or vice versa.
This confrontation can only be overcome with institutional respect, and we have missed it too often," Conde-Pumpido continued. In this regard, he defended the system for electing members of the Constitutional Court, the impartiality of all its members, and denied that the body is politicized. "In all constitutional courts, there are people with political experience, and that doesn't politicize them; it enhances them," he asserted.
.
