“There is no debate.” This clear and concise statement comes from a source from the progressive bloc of the General Council of the Judiciary, which defends word for word what the president of the body, Vicente Guilarte, said last week about the possibility that judges could be summoned to testify. in the investigative commissions in Congress to talk about judicial processes in which they have participated.
Junts and ERC insist that judges and prosecutors are obliged to appear if they are called. The two pro-independence parties intend in this legislature to demonstrate that in the last decade there has been what they call judicial persecution – the so-called lawfare – against political leaders based on their ideology or political positions.
Given the debate that is intended to open with these parliamentary petitions, the CGPJ has already made it clear that there is not the slightest chance that judges will go to the chambers to give explanations about their processes, among other things, because if the magistrates themselves do so They risk a serious penalty for revealing data about their causes.
Sources from the progressive sector of the judicial career clarify that the debate may exist due to the obligation of every person to appear if called by Parliament. However, they then specify that this debate is settled if it is a question of a judge having to speak about her causes. “If someone believes that this is illegal, they will have to go to court or the Prosecutor's Office,” they add.
Sources from the judges' government explain that the Council has never authorized the appearance of a judge. There is a precedent, that of Daniel de Alfonso, who requested to be able to attend the investigation commission on Operation Catalunya. In that 2017 agreement, the CGPJ warned De Alfonso – who wanted to testify voluntarily – that the questions could not concern data or statements “that refer to his position or jurisdictional function.”
The permanent commission of the CGPJ already made an interpretation – communicated to the president of Congress – of article 76.2, in relation to article 117.1 of the Constitution, and due respect for judicial immunity, as an integral element, inseparable and not available from judicial independence, which “requires modulating said appearance when it comes to active judges and magistrates.”
However, the plenary session of the General Council of the Judiciary will study this Thursday a request from the conservative bloc to influence its position against the intervention of judges in the investigative commissions. This request is not viewed favorably by the progressive sector because they believe that what is sought is to exploit the Council.
Recently, the judge of the Supreme Court who regulates the activity of the National Intelligence Center (CNI), Pablo Lucas, already refused to go to Parliament to be questioned about the use of Pegasus spy software by the intelligence service that he controls.
To justify his non-appearance, the judge invoked two articles. One of them is 399 of the LOPJ, which states that civil and military authorities “will refrain from summoning judges and magistrates and summoning them to appear in their presence.”
The exception to this article is that judicial assistance or cooperation may be given as long as “the act to be executed is not legally permitted or the jurisdiction of the judge or court is prejudiced.”
Faced with this controversy, the Minister of the Presidency, Justice, and Relations with the Cortes, Félix Bolaños, again clarified yesterday that the Government's position is on the side of the judges: “The Government will always defend independence and integrity from wherever it comes. This Government will always defend judges, magistrates and prosecutors because that is defending the rule of law,” he noted in his speech during the delivery of dispatches from the LXI promotion of the prosecutorial career.
After several days of public statements by the minister defending judicial independence, he has finally managed to close the meeting with the president of the Supreme Court, Francisco Marín Castán, for this Thursday after it was suspended due to the public statements of the Junts spokespersons.
