Eight members of the General Council of the Judiciary proposed at the time by the PP have asked its president Vicente Guilarte to hold an extraordinary plenary session of the governing body of the judges, whose mandate has expired for almost five years, to rule on the amnesty law that is expected to be registered sooner rather than later in Congress for people affected by criminal and civil cases derived from the process.
At this time, these eight members make up half of the plenary session, which means that they would only need the blank vote of Guilarte himself or the conservative member Wenceslao Olea - who has not signed the petition - for the declaration to go ahead, according to sources from the body. .
The only thing that could happen is that the progressive members refuse to attend the requested plenary session and then the minimum quorum to carry out the vote would not be met.
The members Carmen Llombart, José Antonio Ballestero, Francisco Gerardo Martínez-Tristán, Juan Manuel Fernández, Juan Martínez Moya, José María Macías, Nuria Díaz Abad and María Ángeles Carmona, all appointed at the proposal of the Popular Party, have requested that the plenary session be held to debate an institutional declaration that describes the amnesty as a measure with the effects of "degradation" for the country and "if not the abolition of the rule of law in Spain."
"With this declaration, the General Council of the Judiciary expresses its intense concern and desolation over what this measure represents as a degradation, if not abolition, of the rule of law in Spain, which from the moment it is adopted will become a mere formal proclamation that will inevitably have to produce consequences detrimental to the real interest of Spain," states the text of the declaration that they want to be approved in plenary.
In the letter they emphasize that the CGPJ "has been observing with growing concern the statements of members of some minority political parties, some of them with government responsibilities, regarding the possible amnesty for crimes committed on the occasion of the episodes that occurred on October 1 of 2017, as well as those also committed previously for its preparation, including corruption crimes, and those that were also committed subsequently to oppose the legitimate action of the State to bring its perpetrators to justice and restore public and constitutional order altered."
The members explain that until now they have remained silent as there have only been statements from certain politicians. It was not until the declaration of the acting President of the Government, Pedro Sánchez, supporting the amnesty, when they considered that it was time for the CGPJ to show its absolute rejection of a law that would eliminate all criminal cases linked to the process. and that could benefit hundreds of prosecuted or convicted people.
"Confusing the 'interest of Spain' with the interest of the acting President of the Government to avoid the hypothetical formation of governments of parties with an ideology different from his is something manifestly incompatible with political alternation, inherent in the basic principle of political pluralism. which, according to article 1 of our Constitution, is a superior value of our legal system," these members warn in the draft of the declaration that they want to be approved.
"Doing so excepting the application of the law to prevent the ongoing action of the courts or annulling action that has already occurred through final rulings, turning those rulings into a dead letter, is something flatly incompatible with the principle of the rule of law." , they point out.
In the opinion of these members, the amnesty goes against the independence of the courts and against the principle of legal certainty. "It means generating a caste that is legally irresponsible and unpunished for its crimes which, while not being justified by any constitutionally legitimate purpose, means contravening not only the principle of responsibility of public powers, but even the most basic principle of equality of citizens before the law that proclaims article 14 of the Constitution", they conclude.
