The Constitutional Court sustains in the judgment where it appreciated violation of fundamental rights of parliamentarians by the closure of the Congress of Members during the first state of alarm by the COVID-19 that “rests on this parliamentary institution the constitutional duty to assume exclusively the
Requirement of responsibility to the Government for its political management in these exceptional periods of time, with more intensity and strength than at the ordinary operating time of the constitutional system. ”
The resolution, presentation of Magistrate Antonio Narváez, emphasizes that “the statement of the state of alarm, such as that of any of the other two states of exception and site, can not under any circumstances interrupt the functioning of any of the constitutional powers of the State
And, in a particular way, the Congress of the deputies “.
The Guarantee Court estimated on October 5, the Amparo Resource presented by the deputies of VOX against two decisions of the Table of the Congress, then chaired by the Socialist Meritxell Batet, where he paralyzed the terms of processing of parliamentary initiatives.
A resolution, on March 19, 2020, closed the activity of the lower house, with the votes against the PP and VOX;
and another, on April 21, rejected the allegations against the first decision.
The High Court, which appreciates a violation of the fundamental right to political participation, argues that “you can not interrupt the functioning of any of the constitutional powers of the State and, consequently, of the general cuts. It can not be, then
, paralyzed or suspended, not even transiently, one of the essential functions of the legislative power as is that of the political control of government acts “.
The magistrates emphasize that the Congress of the Deputies, as long as it is the only constitutionally enabled chamber to make effective the requirement of political responsibility for the performance of the Government, in relation to the initiatives and measures it can adopt and apply during that period of
validity, in no case can you stop playing that role, “not even on your own initiative of any of its internal bodies, since the Congress of Deputies has an exclusive responsibility for the constitutional design of the rule of law, which forces him to be
Permanently attentive to avatars that leads to the application of the exceptional legal regime that involves the validity and application of one of those declared States. ”
Therefore, it reads the judgment, “in the statement of the alarm state, the exercise of the right of political participation of the deputies must be, in any case, guaranteed and, in particular, the function of controlling and, where appropriate,,
Require the Government of the political responsibility to be placed. ”
For its part, the Law of the General Courts and the Fiscal Prosecutor argued that the Computer Suspension Agreement of the Deadlines was intended to preserve the life and health of the Deputies and the staff of the Chamber, considering that, in addition
Some of the appellants had been contagious by the Covid-19.
However, the Constitution rejects this reasoning because “although it is in accordance with the Constitution, this objective of preserving the life and health of the parliamentarians and staff of Congress, the decision to suspend the computation of the deadlines of allocation of all
Class of parliamentary initiatives, without any exception, and without having established a time margin of duration (…), it is contrary to one of the most characterized functions of parliamentary work as is the political control of the government and, with respect to the Congress of
The deputies, also of the requirement of political responsibility “.
On the other hand, regarding the argument that the suspension of the computation of the deadlines lasted a very limited duration, which did not reach the month, the sentence explains that “it is not so much the duration of the suspension agreed as the more
Own agreement to suspend the processing of the parliamentary initiatives of the members of the Chamber, because this decision entails in itself a decaprint of the function that the Constitution has conferred on the Congress of the Deputies as it is the control of the Executive; Constitutional function of
Control that must be exercised with maximum intensity during an exceptional state, as in this case the state of alarm, in this way to ensure the rights of citizens and the rule itself. ”
The sentence has the particular vote formulated by the president of the TC, Juan José González Rivas, who disagrees the majority because the constriction of the rights of the deputies adopted in the agreement of the March 19, 2020 does not have aptitude by itself
same to unconstitutionally restrict the right to political participation of recurrent deputies.
In his trial, it was a limitation provided from his rights of political representation given the current conjuncture of an unprecedented health crisis caused by the COVID-19.
On the other hand, the particular vote of the Cándido Conde-Pumpido magistrate notes that the appeal of the formation of Santiago Abascal should be dismissed because the suspension of the computation of the deadlines, in extraordinary circumstances of extreme gravity and unpredictable as those lived in
The month of March 2020, it overcomes a strict control of proportionality.
In his view, this suspension did not suppose an interruption of the operation of the Congress outlawed by Article 116.5 of the Constitution, because it affected only-and for a short period of time- to the parliamentary initiatives that were in processing in the Chamber.
Finally, the particular vote of Magistrate María Luisa Balaguer, who adhered Judge Juan Antonio Xiol, shows his disagreement with the argumentation and with the estimation failure of the Amparo Resource considering that the Congress table adopted the contested measure for
Protect the integrity and health of the deputies and the staff of the Congress.
These magistrates believe that an analysis applying the test of proportionality to the suspension of deadlines leads to conclude that neither the incidence in parliamentary activity nor its duration was such as to consider that the ius in officium of recurrent parliamentarians was affected.
