The Government Chamber of the Supreme Court has unanimously approved a statement in which it considers judicial independence incompatible with the supervision of judges by other powers of the State, at a time when a proposed organic law of amnesty in the Congress of Deputies and a few days after the political agreement between PSOE and Junts in which they mentioned parliamentary investigation commissions for any cases that there may have been of lawfare or judicialization of justice.
The High Court recalls that "the rule of law, on which the European Union and our constitutional order are founded, requires absolute respect for the division of powers" and affirms that "the exercise of the jurisdictional function always complies with legality." , to the defense of the Constitution and to the safeguarding of the rights and freedoms of all citizens, in particular, equality in the application of the law." In the third point of the agreement, the Supreme Court emphasizes "the need to preserve and guarantee judicial independence from all institutions" and "sees the oversight or supervision of jurisdictional work by other powers of the State as incompatible with it."
The High Court has expressed itself in terms very similar to those used by the president of the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ), Vicente Guilarte, in an interview in the newspaper ABC in which he 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 his opinion, if the commissions on 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 I see is that interference may be encouraged once the practical application by the courts of the future amnesty law occurs."
