If labor reform had not already had enough scripts, the final result unleashed chaos in Congress.
It turns out that it was a deputy of the PP, Alberto Home, who with the telematical vote in favor of him declined the scale and who was decisive to save the validation of the Royal Decree Law by a single vote of difference.
The controversy, however, is that the PP had warned minutes before the face-to-face vote began to the president of the Congress, Meritxell Batet, that there had been a “computer error” and that the vote of his deputy had been validated
As a “yes” when in reality he had pressed the “no” button.
This version of the facts triggered an energetic protest of the PP and opened a legal debate on how Batet had to have proceeded.
The President of the Congress refused yesterday to meet the complaints and change the result and now the popular will resort to the Congress table and, if they do not give them the reason, the Constitutional Court.
The root of the conflict is what happened in reality: If the deputy committed a human error and he pressed the wrong button or if, as the PP holds, he created at feet the home of home, there was a computer failure that collected a ”
Yes, when I was a “no”.
With his decision, Batet understands that the first scenario occurred, and that the popular deputy made a mistake.
The problem for the PP is that it is very difficult, not to say impossible, to demonstrate that, in effect, it was a system failure.
Among other things because the deputy for Cáceres was alone in his house and because there is not a single precedent that has happened what is now being denounced.
But, with everything, there are gaps in the actuation of the Batet on which he is going to talk a lot and in which the PP will base his complaint.
Before entering them, it is important to mention that the telematic vote is allowed in the Regulation of Congress, but that its functioning is regulated by a resolution of the May 21, 2012. It explains the entire procedure: to begin
Request the telematic vote, and then follow the steps.
Meter the password to enter the system, vote and validate the pronouncement with a digital signature certificate that is personal.
When all that process is over, a PDF document that collects the sense of vote is generated.
It was at that moment when the deputy discovered that it consisted one vote in favor and not a vote against.
4th: “After exercising the vote through the telematic procedure, the presidency or body in whom it will verify by telephone the authorized deputy, before the beginning of the face-to-face vote in the full, the effective issuance of the vote and the meaning of this one.
These extremes be verified, the telematically issued vote will be transferred to the presidency at the beginning of the face-to-face vote so that it can announce the accumulated result of the voting. ”
6th: “The deputy who had issued his vote through the telematic procedure will not be able to issue his face-to-face vote without an express authorization from the table that, in the event that he decides to authorize the face-to-face vote, will declare the null telematic vote and not emitted.”
It is important to emphasize that, once emitted, the vote can not be modified under any circumstances.
There is no option to correct.
It is then when Homemade contacts Congress and its parliamentary group to move that the system has not verazally collected what I had expressed.
Here the PP alludes the quarter point of the norm that says that “after exercising the vote through the telematic procedure, the Presidency or Organ in whom it will verify by telephone the authorized deputy, before the beginning of the face-to-face vote in the Plenary, the
Effective emission of vote and sense of this ».
The object of that call is not to know if he has voted well, but there have been no failures.
On the occasion of the pandemic, given the amount of telematic vote, it was agreed that these calls no longer occur.
The core now is in what the sixth point of the norm and what happened.
“The deputy who would have issued his vote through the telematic procedure can not issue his face-to-face vote without an express authorization from the Chamber Bureau, which, in the event that he decides to authorize the face-to-face vote will decide the telematic vote null and not issued”.
At 18.15, before the face-to-face vote, there are images of Cuca Gamarra and Guillermo Mariscal warning at the situation table and that home has gone facely to be able to vote and ask him to be allowed because that “computer error has occurred
».
However, Batet does not authorize it and even, says the PP, it is allowed home to enter the full-it is seen in the seat during the protest, but it is only allowed to access after the vote.
Here the PP puts a lot of emphasis, because it says that the norm alludes to the table and not the president, and that there was no meeting or vote on this organ to decide what to do.
She during the full argued that the situation had been analyzed and that the claim was not.
Could he have left Batet to vote home?
There is the legal debate now and that’s where the PP puts the focus.
Meanwhile, denounces that a “cawn” has occurred.
Alberto Home, Natural de Cáceres (1978), with 43 years old was mayor of Trujillo, where he linked two legislatures.
PP Secretary of Organization since 2019, he works on the Teodoro García Aegea team.
