Early in the morning of this Monday, September 9, the government of Castile-La Mancha, chaired by the socialist Emiliano Garcia-Pagefiled electronically a constitutional appeal against the so-called Amnesty Lawas he had already announced.
After activating the legal services of the Community Council, the Government Council of Castile-La Mancha made this decision on July 30 after having studied the opinion of the Advisory Board requested by the regional president, Emiliano García-Page.
Their conclusions are “conclusive” as to the unconstitutionality of the standard.regional executive sources told ABC. The advisory body concluded unanimously that the Government of Castile-La Mancha is entitled to present an unconstitutional appeal as part of the State and considers that “Amnesty does not fit into the constitutional bloc.”
Page later said he felt “perplexed” by the “thunderous silence” of the “serious breach of equality announced by ERC, which he said was due to “an intolerable assent, or a feeling of stupor like that experienced by the vast majority of Spaniards.”
The Advisory Council relies on various statements by the Constitutional Court and concludes that it is possible that the Autonomous Community may present an appeal of unconstitutionality “in the event of any constitutional infringement that a norm may suffer and not only in cases directly related to the defense of its rights.” own competences.
Regarding the adaptation of the law to the constitutionality block, -on which a declaration had also been requested-, the Advisory Council determines in its opinion that The amnesty law has no place in the Constitution and, furthermore, he indicates that its approval would have required a constitutional reform.
The Advisory Council completes the opinion by emphasizing that “This law violates the principle of equality protected by Article 14 of the Constitution and the principles of prohibition of arbitrariness.” This means that any decision lacking adequate, sufficient and coherent motivation will constitute an arbitrary decision and, therefore, unconstitutional.
