A feminist rally at Puerta del Sol in Madrid this Monday.ANDREA COMAS
The Constitutional Court decided this Monday to maintain the prohibition of the concentration called by the unions on the occasion of 8-M, but the appeal of the UGT and CC OO achieved another very relevant objective, that of ensuring that the guarantee court tries to clarify in what assumptions a health emergency situation may justify the suppression of the exercise of fundamental rights, such as assembly and demonstration.
The magistrates, summoned for an emergency plenary session, agreed to admit the appeal for protection filed by the unions, while denying the requested precautionary measure.
The Constitutional decision, therefore, did not disallow the Government Delegation or the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid, which prohibited this concentration promoted by the unions, along with all those announced in the Madrid community on the occasion of 8-M.
The decision was justified as a public health protection measure.
But while refusing to authorize the concentration in extremis, the court accepted the appeal of the unions to decide on the merits of the matter.
The fact that the request for amparo has been admitted for processing means that the Constitutional Court will have to clarify by ruling whether the declaration of the state of alarm can allow citizen mobilizations to be prevented.
The Secretary of Organization of CC OO, Paloma Vega, highlighted this Monday when she said that said admission "indicates that there may be indications that fundamental rights are being violated, which is where we really wanted to go."
The Constitutional Court will therefore analyze whether the suspension of acts such as that provided by the unions is proportional to the precautions due to the health emergency, or whether it is an excessive measure that violates the rights of assembly and demonstration, as reported by the UGT and CC OO, turning the alarm state into an exception state.
The union initiative pursued this objective by defending not only that its concentration should be authorized due to the importance of 8-M for the defense of women's rights and the feminist movement, but also due to the need to prevent the protection of public health implies eroding democratic health.
Hence, in a true race against the clock, the unions presented their request for protection against the prohibition of the act that they had called in Cibeles during the early hours of Monday.
The petition for amparo from UGT and CC OO considers “transcendental” that “the Constitutional Court examine whether the sentence” of the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid prohibiting all the demonstrations of 8-M, when confirming the resolution of the Government Delegation, supposes a reasonable application of the state of alarm for the pandemic.
The unions consider that said application prevents the exercise of the “legitimate right of assembly established in article 21.2 of the EC”, so it is worth asking whether this situation “conforms to the legality of a state of alarm or a state of exception or of site ”.
Concentration and public transport
The unions have defended that concentrations like the ones they called do not put public health at risk more than the use of public transport.
They add that the obligation to go to work, for people who do it every day in the subway, for example, cannot be above fundamental rights.
And on the health situation, the appeal maintains "that this virus stops killing depends on medicine, but whether or not it ends with fundamental rights depends on justice."