The Constitutional Court has endorsed the forms of compliance with the Constitution by "legal imperative" carried out by various pro-independence leaders in May 2019. The progressive majority considers that other formulas apart from "I swear" or "I promise" should be accepted.
In a ruling for which magistrate María Luisa Segoviano has been a rapporteur, he has rejected the PP's appeal, in a paper voted for by the progressive majority, except for magistrate Juan Carlos Campo who has abstained, and with the votes against four conservative magistrates.
The appellants argued that accepting the validity of these formulas for compliance with the Constitution was contrary to the nature of their political representation, since the very makeup of Congress was affected and implied unequal treatment between representatives.
The sentence concludes that it is not proven that the decision of the president of Congress to accept this form of compliance has curtailed the right of the rest of the deputies.
He affirms that there has been no unequal treatment between the deputies, since all the compliance formulas were validated. For the court, the claim of the appellants is that unequal treatment be given to the 29 deputies who complied in this way, which goes against the principle of equality.
The Plenary ruled out that the contested decision, which has allowed those who used these other compliance formulas to gain full status as deputies "does not affect the right of the latter to also fully exercise their parliamentary functions in accordance with legal provisions".
The conservative magistrates Ricardo Enríquez, Enrique Arnaldo, Concepción Espejel and César Tolosa have formulated a dissenting opinion. They maintain that the TC has wasted the opportunity to clear up an opinion that has been erroneously repeated in the constitution sessions of the different legislatures that have been taking place after the judgment of this Court in 1990, and that is, that any formula that is valid is valid. precede or accompany the inevitable "I do swear" or "I do promise."
In his opinion, it is forgotten that this sentence only accepted as valid that of "by legal imperative, "I do swear" or "I do promise", but he added that in no case could expressions that condition or contradict the essentially formal nature and solemn act of the oath and its ultimate sense of representing an act of homage and respect for the Constitution.
Likewise, they understand that the right of the rest of the deputies has been violated by having to compute their vote together with those cast by people who have not complied with an essential requirement for the full exercise of their position, in accordance with the reiterated jurisprudence of this Court, as it is unconditional compliance with the Constitution.
He understands that by not properly complying with the Constitution, they could not have been present in Parliament "unless the president of the Congress of Deputies, after warning them that the formulas used by them could not be accepted as valid, had repeated the question, and would have responded in terms respectful of the Constitution and current parliamentary legality".
