The member of the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) and former PSOE deputy Álvaro Cuesta has requested the suspension of the CGPJ plenary session set for this Monday on the grounds that it is an “illegal” call.
In a letter sent to the Plenary Session, to which EL MUNDO has had access, Cuesta maintains that in the institutional declaration promoted by eight members of the conservative sector “a possible amnesty law proposal, not yet presented or registered in Congress, is disqualified and attacked. , and the eventual political agreements or parliamentary decisions on the possible investiture of the President of the Government, describing it as illegal and unconstitutional.’
“According to the signatories of the proclamation, the CGPJ, in a reckless and arbitrary manner, should deny the constitutionality of a proposed amnesty law whose terms and scope it does not know, and consider that it violates the independence of the Courts and Legal Security, in an alleged competence and function of constitutionality control and in accordance with EU Law, which it lacks”.
The member Cuesta considers that the call of the plenary session made by the president to replace this body, Vicente Guilarte, is “inadmissible and illegal, for not meeting all the requirements of article 600.2 of the Organic Law of the Judiciary and for interfering in the autonomy of Parliament, in the constitutional provisions on the investiture debate of the President of the Government, leading the General Council of the Judiciary to an unfair institutional confrontation”.
The member closest to the PSOE also maintains that if the Plenary Session is not called off, he will not attend it. “Likewise, I announce, if it is not called off, the non-attendance of this Member to a Plenary Session that I conscientiously consider contrary to the legal system and the constitutional functions of this body. I do not want to see my name in the list of attendees. I will not be the one contributes to the indignity and discredit that Members elected by the Spanish Cortes in 2013, can be considered rebellious against initiatives of the Parliament legitimately elected on July 23, 2023, placing their names next to decisions that undoubtedly taint the name of this General Council of the Judiciary, once it is outside the jurisdictional and temporal orbit, as its mandate has expired, although it is still in office after ten years,” reads the document sent this Sunday by the counselor to the Plenary.
Cuesta considers “indisputable” that the CGPJ does not have the authority to issue statements on Bills, “unless the Congress of Deputies has requested it.” “The Council has no authority to interfere in the prior processing of a proposal, nor can this body attribute the powers or functions of censor, guardian of essences, Judge of constitutionality or issuer of prior certifications of quality of parliamentary initiatives, of the Deputies or Senators and their Groups, before the Chambers or the Government itself speak out,” the member emphasizes.
