The Constitutional Court refuses to separate three of its magistrates so that they do not participate in the abortion sentence

The Constitutional Court has rejected this Wednesday, flatly, the challenge presented against its president, Cándido Conde-Pumpido, and against the magistrates Juan Carlos Campo and Inmaculada Montalbán to intervene in the deliberation and sentence of the appeal presented in 2010 against the abortion law .

The three challenged belong to the progressive majority of the court.

Judge Concepción Espejel, from the conservative group of the guarantee body, has spoken out against said decision and has announced the presentation of a private vote to explain the reasons for her discrepancy.

Espejel, who was also challenged, wanted to abstain from participating in the ruling on the abortion law, but the Constitutional plenary session prevented her from doing so by means of a resolution in which it considered that there were no reasons for her to stay out of the debate on the matter. .

The court considered that said magistrate was critical of the regulation that the aforementioned law made of the voluntary interruption of pregnancy, but that she did so as a contribution to a report that the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) was preparing, a text which was never approved or sent to the Government, during the preparation of the draft of what in 2010 was going to be the new regulations on the right to abortion.

The recusal of the other three magistrates has been rejected, in turn, because the court considered that the five former PP deputies who submitted the request for recusal are not entitled to take this initiative.

The Constitutional Court considers that the legitimacy to file a challenge would only be held in this case by "the group of 50 or more deputies who filed the appeal of unconstitutionality" against the abortion law.

The court understands that the five popular ex-parliamentarians who have presented the challenge, on the other hand, "did not act" on behalf of the aforementioned "50 or more deputies" who appealed the law.

The full text of the resolution will be known in the coming days.

In the debate prior to the resolution of this matter, the idea of ​​reaffirming the Constitutional doctrine was also discussed in the sense of flatly rejecting the challenges in defense of the work of the court itself when it considers that it is intended to prevent its work, leaving it without a quorum. through the presentation of challenges based on the questioning of the impartiality of its members.

But finally it was considered unnecessary to add arguments that could provoke new controversies, when there was a reason to reject outright the admission of the challenges.

Once it was decided that Espejel should remain in the deliberation and that the challenge directed against the magistrates Conde-Pumpido —president of the court—, Montalbán and Campo was rejected, the court began this Wednesday the debate on the draft sentence prepared by the magistrate of the sector Conservative Enrique Arnaldo.

The Constitutional Court reported that the deliberation "is being intense given the complexity of the matter."

Arnaldo made a long presentation focused on the endorsement of the deadline law, but with objections to the formula used to inform the pregnant woman of the intervention to which he is going to undergo and her alternatives.

He also raised the extension of the right to conscientious objection for all professionals who take part in the process of voluntary termination of pregnancy, not just medical personnel.

This Thursday will continue the Constitutional plenary session, in which the magistrates Ricardo Enríquez, María Luisa Balaguer, Inmaculada Montalbán and the president, Cándido Conde-Pumpido, remain to intervene.

The progressive majority advocates fully endorsing the abortion law and, therefore, intends to reject Arnaldo's presentation if he maintains the proposal to declare article 17.5 of the current law unconstitutional.

This precept regulates how information must be provided to the pregnant woman, in writing in a sealed envelope, when in the rapporteur's opinion this system is insufficient and there should also be a verbal explanation.

There are also discrepancies about the limits to conscientious objection by professionals, although the speaker does not propose declaring this point unconstitutional.