The Judiciary requests a new extension of the deadline to report on the amnesty law

The permanent commission of the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) has requested a new two-week extension to carry out its report on the amnesty law.

The reason lies in the postponement that the approval of this law has suffered in Congress, after the negative vote of Junts.

In reality, the Judiciary has been paralyzing the drafting of its report for weeks now.

Firstly, the factor that triggered the Council's stoppage was the reform of the Senate regulations promoted by the PP to retain the bill for two months as it passed through the Chamber.

But what has ended up freezing the work of the two rapporteurs appointed to carry out the report has been the aforementioned refusal from Junts and the uncertainty that since January 30, the day of the aforementioned parliamentary debate, has surrounded the immediate future of the amnesty law.

The two speakers designated to prepare the opinion requested by the Senate are members Wenceslao Olea and Mar Cabrejas, members of the conservative and progressive groups, respectively.

They held a meeting with Council lawyers before the end of the year to establish a work methodology.

But upon returning from the Christmas break, it was already clear that the processing of the proposed amnesty law was going to take time.

Firstly, because it was evident that the PP wanted to slow down its parliamentary processing as much as possible, since a report was even requested from the Senate lawyers on the consequences of its eventual paralysis.

The straw that broke the camel's back, however, was the emphatic refusal of Junts to accept the current wording of the law, and the opening of a new period for political negotiation, within the Congressional Justice Commission and in other parallel conversations between the Government and the independentists.

ERC already agrees with the proposed text, but obviously remains interested in the negotiations, with the Government's commitment that no agreement will be closed with Puigdemont's party without Junqueras' organization having complete information.

In their conversations with other members of the Council, members Olea and Cabrejas themselves have agreed on the need not to anticipate their work given the possibility that the amnesty law may still undergo more or less important changes during its processing or parliamentary procedure, or even that not be approved.

At the headquarters of the Judiciary it is still believed that it is most likely that the law will obtain sufficient parliamentary support and will be published in the BOE to come into force next May or June.

But, even in this case, the speakers believe that the most prudent thing is not to anticipate judgments on the constitutionality of precepts that may undergo variations.

In other words, observations on the possible unconstitutionality of specific aspects of the law can even serve to avert that risk when the text passes through Congress and the Senate, and if there is a function that the Council is not entrusted with, it is the error prevention and legal advice for parliamentary groups.

A member of the Judiciary explained it like this: “we prefer to give our opinion on the painting when it is hanging on the wall, not on the sketches.”

Subscribe to continue reading

Read without limits

Keep reading

I am already a subscriber

_