Judge Pablo Llarena, instructor of the process of the process in the Supreme Court, spoke yesterday Monday about the amnesty law that former Catalan president Carles Puigdemont demands for the investiture of Pedro Sánchez and said that the first debate that must be clarified is whether it fits in the Constitution.
In a conference at the Faculty of Law of Burgos coinciding with Catalonia's Day, Llarena insisted that it is early for a statement on this eventual law, since "many nuances are needed that are not yet on the table," and indicated that From an academic perspective, the first debate focuses on analyzing “whether or not the constitutional order allows amnesty.”
“If we conclude that it does not fit, then the debate is over,” he noted, but if it is concluded that it does fit, “then we have to look at whether the possible law is legitimate or justified,” that is, “if it is not unconstitutional, if applicable.” And for this it is necessary to know the explanatory statement, the reasons that support it and whether they respect the constitutional requirements, "if there is a constitutionally legitimate purpose that justifies deactivating fundamental constitutional principles", such as the division of powers or equality, indicated the Supreme Court judge.
For this reason, Pablo Llarena insisted that, right now, “there cannot be a statement,” because “we only know that there is one man” who has determined that there are “rational indications of criminality” and demands amnesty.
Furthermore, Puigdemont “insists” that his actions have been legal, the magistrate stated, but the judicial procedure does not reflect this, in addition to the fact that there is a crime of embezzlement “that has not been repealed,” and he “boasts that he has right to do so,” when talking about self-determination.
In his conference, which was titled The judicial power as guarantor of the rule of law, Pablo Llarena recalled that, following what is stated in article 117 of the Constitution, judges are responsible, immovable, independent and are “exclusively subject to the rule of law.” the law".
The magistrate admitted that the independence of judges “fundamentally generates difficulties in the relationship with other powers of the State,” and warned that a “slide” is taking place that causes “value positions to be lost” and that independence is “weakened.” .
Among the risks of this slippage is the system of electing the members of the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ), which is generating “disturbances”, and is part of the “noise” that, although it does not harm the functioning of the system, it does contribute. to weaken the social perception of judges.
