The allegations presented by the Congress of Deputies to the precautionary measure agreed by the Constitutional Court and to which this newspaper has had access endorse those presented by the legal services of the Senate but add new arguments and harsh criticism of the actions of the High Court, for not having pondered the effects of the precautionary measure, which violates more rights than those it intends to protect. "The suspension has caused the greatest possible disturbance that can be imagined, not only to a constitutionally protected interest, but even more serious, to a function of the State, such as the legislative function granted exclusively to the Cortes Generales."
The brief of allegations specifies that "this disturbance has affected a process in progress - and not yet completed - of a law, eliminating a part of a text that was legitimately approved by the Justice Commission and the Plenary of Congress", and recalls to the high court that what was resolved does not conform to its own law: The consequences of such a disturbance can be described as serious, as required by the Organic Law of the Constitutional Court”. And in fact, the lawyers detect an illegitimate interference by the Constitutional Court in the manner of a third legislative chamber, since "the precautionary measure has the effect that the text approved by Congress is modified by the Constitutional Court, as if it were a a suppression amendment.
But also, “the action of the Constitutional Court prevents the Senate from being able to rule on what is really approved by Congress; and it prevents Congress from being able to rule again on possible amendments that the Senate could have presented on this part of the Bill now eliminated, amendments that are now completely impossible to present, debate and vote on.
That definition of “serious” affectation of a constitutionally protected interest to which the lawyers allude is very important, since a precautionary measure such as “the suspension must be considered; it would not be possible if it causes a serious disturbance to a constitutionally protected interest, to the fundamental rights or freedoms of another person”, they affirm.
On this matter, the sovereignty and inviolability of the Courts, the lawyers of the Congress underline the singular protection that the Constitution grants to their functions: "The legislative procedure has a very special configuration, of a constitutional nature, its regulation forming part of the so-called block of constitutionality (Article 72.1 of the Constitution), the constituent having wanted the Chambers themselves to decide the rules by which they themselves want to abide. All this has a clear purpose: to protect the legislative process of the Chamber from external interference, to guarantee that the Chamber, from beginning to end, can carry out its procedure of approving laws with full autonomy”, recall the lawyers.
They also highlight the legal inconsistency that the PP has appealed only two amendments when the alleged vice also concerns another, which, however, the Constitutional Court has not suspended. The letter, which is also critical of the PP, points out that "it is also incongruous that the appellants only consider their rights violated by the processing of these amendments 61 and 62 and, on the other hand, have not appealed other amendments that appear incorporated to the text approved by the Plenary of Congress”. And it details: "In the Paper it was stated that the following amendments were heterogeneous: 37, 53, 82, 55, 56, 58, 59, 60, 61 and 62. Of these, 55, 56, 58 were introduced in the Paper , 59, 60, 61 and 62. And Amendments 37, 53 and 82 were maintained until the Plenary”.
“Lastly, and as a corollary to all of the above, the precautionary measure adopted has entailed a violation of the principle of separation of powers which, although it is not expressly included in our constitutional text, underlies it and governs the operation and relations between all the powers of the State", states the brief of allegations, which adds "the precautionary measure has involved an interference in the legislative function of the Chambers, which must be carried out by them without being subject to external restrictions or conditions, and it has been through a way not provided for in the Organic Law of the Constitutional Court itself, since the amparo remedy, and less the precautionary measure, can become a means to suspend the processing of the parliamentary procedure with an early prosecution of its constitutionality.
