The Laws of the Congress of Deputies have given the vote of the deputy of the homemade Ppalberto, which was decisive to approve labor reform, and have concluded that it could not be corrected, so the vote that finally gave green light to the validation of the
Decree is “irrevocable”.

This has been pointed out in a report referred to the Congress table, in which the services of the House totally discard that a computer failure could have occurred, as the PP argued from the first moment to claim correcting the meaning of his vote.

The lawyers have issued a report and have accompanied him by another prepared by the Directorate of Information and Communications Technologies of Congress.
In the first they argue, and even place examples of previous votes, why with the Rules of the Chamber in hand and with its successive resolutions present there is no place to admit a change in the result of the voting or even repeating the same as a consequence
of the mistake of the PP deputy.

In the second report, the lawyers leave proof of the lack of informal failure when it comes to issuing the vote by the deputy of the popular.
The PP, despite the opinion of the legal services of the Chamber, are determined, as Paul married progressed, to appeal this decision before the Constitutional Court.

The document of the lawyers literally indicates: “The vote emitted by the Homemaster, by the procedure established for this purpose and without technical error or failure in the functioning of the voting system, it is fully valid and as such must be considered,
Producing all its effects. ”

Legal services insist that “the voting procedure is not available for the deputy”.
And they explain that the voting procedure “links the parties that participate in it” and “no,” he adds, “it can be at his arbitration”.

The lawyers emphasize that, precisely “respect for the procedure is a guarantee of order and, with this, of the principle of legal security and the right of political participation of the set of members of the Chamber.”

In this way, they explain, “when this is pronounced according to the intended procedure, there is no definitively understood and, as regards each vote, irrevocable.”
The opposite, they point out, “I would mean recognition that the voting act is not complete by itself and that, on the other hand, its validity is conditioned at a subsequent phase, which would open a scenario of legal insecurity of unpredictable consequences.”

For all the above, the Laws of Congress consider “irrevocable the act of voting.”
In front of them, the PP insists on his decision to submit the matter to the constitutional court’s arbitration.

In the same report, the lawyers insist that “material errors in voting, in response to an elementary principle of legal certainty, do not justify the repetition of a vote,” as the PP intended.
And they point out that the mistakes in the sense of vote are very numerous, even affecting the final result of the voting, and this has not caused any change.
To illustrate it, cite in your report the most striking cases

Thus, it collects for example the one event in the plenum of 9 February 2006 in relation to the Decree Law by which tax rates of Tobacco Tax were modified, and despite the declared will in debate, 30 deputies
The socialist group voted erroneously against the validation, so that the decree was repealed.

This example, however, does not contemplate the fact that the affected deputies express their mistake and, therefore, their desire to modify the meaning of their vote, before the vote as such will be carried out.

In short, the legal services of the lower house conclude that “the home vote was validly issued and produces full effects,” which “there was no failure in the voting system” and that “did not be violated the telematic voting procedure”
.

The lawyers also explain in the conclusions of their report that the telematic vote can not involve the existence of a “second chance” for the deputy that chooses it.
They also point out that since the circumstances have justified the annulment of their vote (technical failure), “it was neither legally enforceable nor necessary to bring together the Congress table.”

The PP maintains his decision to arrive “until the end” in this matter.
The popular will come to the constitutional, where they will present two amparo resources.
One signed by Alberto Home and another on behalf of the Parliamentary Group of the PP in Congress.

Popular sources justify the world that these two resources are presented to preserve the dignity of Parliament, as well as the will of the majority of the House in the vote of the “Counter-Reformation”.

The central thesis will be that since the presidency of Congress, the fundamental right to the vote of its deputy has been aware, because it warned before the face-to-face vote and, therefore, had “capacity” so that home vote on the full
with most of his companions.

The spokesman for the PP in Congress, Cuca Gamarra, has criticized that the Chamber Chairman, Meritxell Batet, has not attended to the request to gather the table to study the case and has reproached that now “it is filtered interested” the
Report of the Laws at the end of an electoral campaign, in reference to that of Castilla y León.
“Here everything is worth and what she shows is that the democratic quality of our country is deteriorating,” she has emphasized declarations to Europe Press.

In this regard, sources of the Parliamentary Group of the PP have highlighted that the report of the lawyers subscribes it that said that the seat of the United States can not be withdrawn, and that finally Batet was obliged to do by order of the court
Supreme.