The next chapter of the war that PSOE and PP are waging over the Amnesty law through the corresponding bodies of lawyers in Congress and Senate, respectively, will write a new chapter this Tuesday since the Lower House will reject it as "inadmissible" the conflict of powers put forth by the Upper House: "There is no channel" for the Board chaired by Francina Armengol to withdraw a law that has been processed and approved in the Plenary" (...) "The procedure is correct," they have parliamentary sources told EFE.
It must be remembered that, by virtue of the absolute majority of the PP, the Senate sent a request to Congress to withdraw the Amnesty Law. Congress had until May to respond, although the Table - in which PSOE and Sumar have a majority - plans to make its rejection official this Tuesday by opening, after the fact, a period of allegations to the parties that make up the aforementioned body.
Without entering into questions about the constitutionality of the law, the report sticks to procedural issues. And in that specific aspect, the lawyers of Congress emphasize that the Lower House has exercised its powers "in the constitutionally and legally established terms", and that now it is the turn of the Senate, in accordance with the powers granted to it by the Constitution.
In his opinion, "under the guise of defending its powers, the Senate cannot attempt to subvert those legitimately exercised by Congress in the legislative procedure," and he warns that the approach to the conflict by the Upper House " "It would be an artifice to avoid fulfilling its constitutional obligation and supplanting Congress."
Relying on rulings from the TC, the legal services emphasize that the votes that occur in the Chamber within the framework of the legislative procedure "are not an ideal object" of a conflict of powers, and that if the Senate understands that the usurpation of its powers is occurred when the Congress Board admitted the controversial PSOE bill for processing in November, it should have presented that conflict then, but now it is "out of time" because the 30 days established by the Constitution for appeal.
In any case, the Congressional lawyers reaffirm their initial report from November, which endorsed the processing of the legislative initiative, alleging that any constitutionality doubts that may exist were not so "obvious" as to veto it, ignoring the right of parliamentarians to discuss it. .
The report presented this Monday also does not accept the Senate's argument that it should have been treated as a constitutional reform because the TC requires that these types of initiatives must contain an alternative article to the Magna Carta, and there was none. For this reason, he calls it "clear interference" for the Senate to question the constitutionality of the parliamentary processing of the initiative in Congress or compliance with the regulatory norms.
Thus, the lawyers indicate that "there is no regulatory channel" that allows the Congressional Committee to paralyze an initiative that is being processed, as the Senate claims: "Such a claim, which would again be unprecedented, would imply recognizing a exorbitant power to the Board of the Chamber," they maintain.
