The Judicial Offensive Of PP And Vox Against Batet Will Take Months

The Judicial Offensive Of PP And Vox Against Batet Will Take Months

The Popular Party and Vox have just announced a judicial offensive for the controversial vote on the labor reform last Thursday in Congress. Even in the absence of specifying the channels they will use, their common goal is to challenge the actions of the president of the Chamber, Meritxell Batet , but the road ahead is long and arduous, not only because of the legal complexity that this whole matter entails, but also because the times of justice are not those of politics.

The consequences of everything that happened, therefore, will be known in months or more than a year , since the Constitutional Court is not characterized by the speed of decision-making. This circumstance, together with the renewal of this judicial body that should be undertaken in a few months, could be decisive when it comes to tilting the balance to one side or the other.

Both those of Pablo Casado and those of Santiago Abascal have advanced that they will appeal to the Constitutional Court, but the path that their resources will follow, unlike what it might seem at first, will not be aimed at discussing the erroneous vote of the deputy Alberto Casero -he spoke in favor of the labor reform instead of against it, like the rest of his group-, but the position adopted by Batet.

Specifically, due to the decision of the president of Congress not to convene the Table when the Popular Group warned of the error of the vote alleging a computer incident. The PP alleges that both its representatives in the governing body of the Chamber and that of Vox demanded a meeting of the Table that ultimately did not take place.

What route does prevarication have?
Both PP and Vox have opened the way to go to the Constitutional in amparo, the appeal that can be presented before this court for possible violation of fundamental rights. In his case, those of his parliamentary groups for not convening the meeting of the Table that they requested . But they have also opened the door to a lawsuit for prevarication . The leader of the ‘popular’, Pablo Casado, said so last Friday. This route would include the Supreme Court, the body before which Batet is registered.

Prevarication is a crime contemplated in the Penal Code that punishes those authorities or public officials who dictate an unjust decision knowing that it is unjust . The penalty contemplated is the special disqualification for public employment or office and for the exercise of the right to passive suffrage for a period of nine to fifteen years.

As in all legal cases, the difference in the versions about what happened will be used by one and the other to defend their position in the face of what happened last Thursday. Sources from the Congress Table consulted by 20Minutes say that “several deputies” went to the president to inform her that there had been a computer error. Always according to their version, they did so around 6:15 p.m., minutes before the voting began.

As the same sources declare, the lawyers of the Chamber verified that there was no such error, for which Batet ignored the request to meet with PP and Vox. The president herself confirmed this when the ‘popular’ spokeswoman, Cuca Gamarra, asked to speak before the end of the plenary session: “The Table is knowledgeable and has been able to analyze what you are going to propose . ” At this point, what said sources consulted do not clarify is whether it is mandatory for the Presidency of Congress to convene the Table if groups that are part of it so request.

In the Regulations of the Lower House , yes, it is stated that the competence of said call is that of the president. “The Table will meet at the call of the president,” says article 35.1.

The PP denounces his absence in the verification
In the PP they disagree. As sources from this parliamentary group have explained, the members of the Table Ana Pastor and Adolfo Suárez Illana were not in the verification that, according to the Presidency, was made on Alberto Casero’s vote, so, as they conclude, the Table as a body it was not aware because it did not meet officially.

The professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Seville and former lawyer of the Constitutional Court Joaquín Urías sees little chance that the resources of PP and Vox will succeed. And it is that, as explained in a conversation with this newspaper, the Popular Group must demonstrate that there really was a computer failure “and that this problem meant that the will of the deputy was not transferred to the Chamber, which could cause the repetition of the vote”.

In this sense, Urías recalls that another of the PP’s explanations for Casero’s vote is that the legal services of Congress did not call him to confirm that he had voted, but this, which was one of the rules in 2012, was changed after the arrival of the pandemic. “I think that the Constitutional Court will reject the resources because none of the errors that they have listed have delegitimized the vote, because he did vote ”, he concludes.

Another of the keys to take into account in the judicial journey that it seems that PP and Vox are going to initiate is that the composition that the Constitutional Court will have when it has to decide on the amparo appeals. The body is made up of twelve members and currently the majority is conservative , but its renewal – with four candidates proposed by the Government and the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) – should be undertaken in June.

If everything is done in a timely manner, the balance could be reversed and the majority sensitivity of the magistrates would become progressive . Everything depends on whether by then the CGPJ can make discretionary appointments, since a law that is being appealed before the Constitutional Court itself prevents it.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.