The president of the General Council of the Judiciary, Vicente Guilarte, believes that "it would be inadmissible for Parliament to review how judges apply the future amnesty law", while denouncing an escalation of interference by political power in jurisdictional activity.
In an interview with the newspaper ABC Guilarte points out that "there is unanimous opposition from the judiciary and legal operators to the 'lawfare' contemplated by the PSOE-Junts agreement.
In his opinion, if lawfare were activated, "it would mean an interference by Parliament in the Judiciary, a subsequent criticism of what a judge has done in accordance with current legislation. And the problem may not affect what was decided so much. The problem that What I see is that interference may be encouraged once the practical application by the courts of the future amnesty law occurs."
The criticism that may be made of this application by whoever is entitled to do so will be legitimate, says Gil, for whom "what would be inadmissible is for Parliament to review how judges apply that law."
"I will always defend any judicial activity linked to the application of future approved laws, regardless of the discussion on their constitutionality, which can be channeled through other channels," he says.
Guilarte believes the CGPJ's warning is necessary because although in other cases it has been reticent, "this can be very dangerous." "My personal idea is that some have to respect judicial independence and others have to respect parliamentary independence," says the president of the CGPJ.
He points out that "if this affects judicial independence or the constitutional principles of the system, other operators must prosecute it, not the CGPJ."
"Personally," he says, "I am not going to criticize any law that emanates from Parliament; on the contrary, the jurisdictional application of the laws that come out of the Chambers must be accepted by parliament in a categorical manner. Independence and the division of powers must be bidirectional".
Asked if he believes that we are in the most delicate moment of democracy in terms of interference in the judiciary, the president of the high body of judges believes that "the agreement between two parties and some statements by the President of the Government "I still believe that they are part of the political debate, of which I am not an actor, and therefore do not mean a real confrontation with our constitutional rules and principles."
But he adds that "if this is reflected in more concrete legislative initiatives that specifically question judicial independence and the separation of powers, it would be more serious."
Given the escalation of interference by political power in jurisdictional activity, Gil believes that "we should engage in self-criticism and analyze whether the opposite also happens, as we are angrily accused of." But the truth, he adds, "is that this forces the judiciary to become almost a political activist, of one kind or another. I try to avoid it, but it is not easy."
He defends the legitimacy of the CGPJ to question a political decision but clarifies that "something else is, in common vulgar terminology, the 'perimeter' of legitimacy, which is not generically to question parliamentary decisions, but only to the extent that they point to a bankruptcy of the independence and independent functioning of the judicial bodies".
Guilarte asserts that "that is a political option that has to be questioned politically. I cannot make positions on a way of legislating. If they ask us for reports it would be the best for us, but if they do not ask for them I am not the one to question it."
Regarding the renewal of the Judicial Branch, Vicente Guilarte affirms that "I hope more and more vehemently that it happens, because I have been saying it for a long time: the current system is absolutely exhausted, both in the method of appointment, impossible to undertake in the absence of agreement , as in exercise mode."
