The Constitutional Court gave its agreement this morning categorically reject the challenge presented by the public prosecutor concerning Judge José María Macías so that he does not intervene in the appeals against the amnesty law.
By unanimitythe TC considered that the prosecution had challenged Macías out of time, as being premature.
Even today, the Constitutional Court agreed to deal with the appeal of the Popular Group of Congress against amnesty from all responsibilities of the ‘trial’. This appeal adds to the questions of unconstitutionality raised by the Supreme Court and other judicial bodies. The resources promoted by the autonomous communities governed by the PP are still awaiting admission.
The prosecution’s challenge against Macías, whose TC was constituted last July on the proposal of the PP, was presented before the PP’s appeal, registered on September 4, was admitted for processing.
The Public Prosecutor’s Office challenged Macías on September 20 on the basis of the current TC magistrate’s participation in a report on the amnesty law published by the General Council of the Judiciary, of which the accused was a member.
In this report, prepared at the request of the Senate in March 2024, the CGPJ issued the legal criterion according to which the amnesty law is unconstitutional. Macías voted for, therefore the legal representation of the Government considers that there is a lack of impartiality constituted by “the judge or magistrate having exercised a public or administrative function during which he was able to become aware of the dispute and form a judgment to the detriment of due impartiality” (article 219.16 of the organic law of the judicial power) .
On the proposal of Judge Concepción Espejel, rapporteur of the dispute, the TC considered that the dispute had been raised in advance.
Although the Government may be party to an appeal for unconstitutionality, the one filed against the amnesty law was not promoted by it, but by the PP.
The Government can therefore act from the moment the appeal is admitted (today) and the public prosecutor is party, but not before this legal relationship is established.
Prosecution sources said they were aware the challenge could be considered premature, but it was decided to present it “with caution” (as a preventive measure) to cover the hypothesis that the TC considered that the incident should have been promoted 10 days after Macías’ arrival in court.
Anyway, the challenge will be back on the table of the Constitutional Court, because it is foreseeable that the Government will again give instructions to the Prosecutor’s Office to challenge Macías again once he appears in the appeal for unconstitutionality.
In addition, the same magistrate was also challenged by the Attorney General, Álvaro García Ortiz, in the trial opened after the admission of the question of unconstitutionality promoted by the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court.
