The Constitutional Court will decide by judgment if the suppression of sedition violated the Magna Carta

The Constitutional Court has decided in the plenary session on Tuesday to admit three appeals against as many laws promoted by the Government in the last year of the legislature. The first refers to the amendment of the Criminal Code, which led to the disappearance of the crime of sedition and the reduction of the criminal offence of embezzlement. The challenge was presented by the parliamentary group of the PP against the organic law 11/2022, of December 22, transposition of European directives and other provisions for the adaptation of criminal legislation to the order of the European Union, and reform of crimes against moral integrity, public disorder and smuggling of dual-use weapons. The admission implies that the court will decide by judgment on the constitutionality or not of said penal reform.

The PP questioned from the beginning the way to process this law. The parliamentary group came to request the Constitutional Court the adoption of a controversial precautionary measure, consisting of preventing the debate of two amendments presented by the PSOE and Podemos with which they sought to facilitate the renewal of the Constitutional Court, because they had nothing to do with the initiative. The PP also opposed the content of this penal reform because it understood that it meant a risk for the defense of the unity of Spain. "The laws of Spain cannot be drafted at the headquarters of ERC for the political expediency of Pedro Sánchez. Neither the Constitution nor the rule of law can surrender to the needs of any political leader, and less to those who rose up against our nation," said the popular spokeswoman, Cuca Gamarra. "In no European country would the crime of sedition be touched by the seditious," he added.

The body of guarantees granted the precautionary measure after several days of strong tensions within the Constitutional Court itself. When the conflict was raised, last December, the Constitutional Court had already been six months with its mandate finished with the composition it had then. This composition presupposed the existence of a conservative majority. A few weeks later, when the court was renewed in January, it became progressive.

The PP argued in its appeal that the law could be unconstitutional due to defects in its approval procedure, an issue on which the court will now have to return, four months after having issued the aforementioned precautionary measure, which was opposed by the progressive sector, then a minority. The underlying issue – the elimination of the crime of sedition and the modification of the figure of embezzlement, together with a new type of public disorder – was also challenged by the PP, which considers that these changes violate five constitutional precepts, including articles 9 – prohibition of the arbitrariness of public powers – 14 – equality of Spaniards before the law. 24 ―effective protection of the courts―, 62 ―attribution to the King of the call for a referendum― and 117, concerning the independence of judges and courts, which are responsible for interpreting and applying the law.

In parallel, the Constitutional Court has admitted Vox's appeal of unconstitutionality against the trans law. This challenge has been promoted by more than 50 deputies of the parliamentary group of this party in Congress against various precepts of Law 4/2023, of February 28, for the real and effective equality of trans people and for the guarantee of the rights of LGTBI people. The appellants maintain that the rule could violate at least nine precepts of the Constitution, including the one that guarantees the right to honor, personal and family privacy and self-image, the one related to respect for ideological freedom and the one that establishes that the public authorities guarantee the right that assists parents so that their children receive the religious and moral formation that is in accordance with their own convictions.

On the other hand, the court has also admitted to process and will resolve by judgment the appeals of unconstitutionality promoted by the Assembly of Madrid and by the Council of Government of the Autonomous Community of the Region of Murcia against the tax on large fortunes. These two challenges are directed against Article 3 of Law 38/2022, of December 27, for the establishment of temporary energy levies and credit institutions and financial credit establishments and which creates the temporary solidarity tax of large fortunes, and modifies certain tax rules. In total, five appeals of unconstitutionality against the aforementioned tax have already been admitted for processing. In addition to these two, the appeals presented by the autonomous governments of Andalusia, Community of Madrid (Governing Council) and Galicia are being processed.