The legal report that today will be made available to the Congressional Board that must qualify the Amnesty law proposal so that it can begin its parliamentary processing does not find on this occasion reasons for “obvious unconstitutionality” and, consequently, does not pose an obstacle to its The initiative begins its journey in Congress. However, the text also recognizes that the doctrine “is divided” regarding the constitutionality of the amnesty and, furthermore, there is no “clear” jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court on its validity.
The conclusion reached today by the lawyers’ report is radically opposite to what the Chamber’s legal services issued in 2021 when ERC and the Plural Group also registered their own amnesty proposal for those convicted and prosecuted in the process. Then the senior lawyer of the Chamber was Carlos Gutiérrez. Now his position, for just two weeks, has been occupied by Fernando Galindo, from the government orbit and whom the Popular Group has asked to challenge due to his obvious affinity to the Executive.
The document to which EL MUNDO has had access argues that, in principle, the fact that a proposal of this nature is qualified and admitted for processing does not imply a “prior control of constitutionality.” In this way, and as it could not be otherwise, it does not prejudge the decision that the Constitutional Court may subsequently adopt in the face of the foreseeable appeals that will be presented against the proposal.
In the conclusions of the long legal report, it is pointed out that the non-admission of a proposal for qualification and processing is something “exceptional” in that it may amount to a “breach of the fundamental rights” provided for in article 23 of the Magna Carta and, They then set out the circumstances that would justify non-admission for processing, none of which now exist in their opinion.
The text of the legal services adds that the bill signed by the spokesperson of the Socialist Group “lacks formal defects that make it impossible to admit it for processing” and justifies its decision in comparison with the one adopted in 2021 by pointing out that on that occasion the What was really proposed by ERC and the Plural Group was the granting of a “general pardon”, a figure that is expressly prohibited in article 62 of the Constitution. In short, the report is based on the fact that the amnesty is not vetoed in the first law of the State, although it is not recognized either.
In this sense, he argues that, unlike the 2021 proposal, the current text does not include a provision that individualizes the open causes by identifying them in a concrete and specific way and considers that the current initiative, according to its structure, has a “similarity much clearer” with the Amnesty Law of 1977.
However, the report indicates that there are other possible reasons for unconstitutionality that have been pointed out by legal doctrine, but these must be clarified where appropriate by the Constitutional Court. Consequently, the legal text states that, from its point of view, “there do not seem to exist in the Constitution or in constitutional jurisprudence sufficient parameters or elements to determine whether there is an obvious and obvious contradiction with the Constitution.” However, it reiterates that it must be the TC, the supreme interpreter of the Magna Carta, who definitively decides on the viability of the bill through the appropriate procedures.