Judge José María Macías asked the President of the Constitutional Court, Cándido Conde-Pumpido, not to divide the challenges raised against them and against Judge Laura Díez and that the three be examined jointly in a single plenary session and without the intervention by any of them in this debate. In a letter addressed to the president, to which ABC had access, Macías expresses his “rejection and concern” about the criterion that Conde-Pumpido intends to follow in the order of resolution of these disputes, a criterion which, as announced this newspaper yesterday, It seems aimed at maintaining the progressive majority at all times and facilitating the expulsion of Macías from the court, since his challenge should be resolved ultimately and the president himself and Díez will also participate after their companions will have saved them from this trance. Related news norm Yes The government aligns with the Attorney General to remove Macías from appeals against amnesty in the Nati Constitutional Villanueva In his writings, Macías denounces the “particular” criterion that was followed with him because it is ” simultaneously”. contested and not contested” depending on the reason: “I am ready to intervene in incidents (like the abstention of Campo during the last plenary session), but I do not want to include myself among those rejected whose withdrawal must be decided of the question and which, apparently, is left for another time. “My rejection arises from the asymmetry of the criterion followed, the result of which is not at all neutral: according to the ordering criterion that you have decided to ‘apply, the four aforementioned magistrates will be logically and correctly excluded from participating in your challenge, but in the event of rejection, it seems that you will be able to participate in a subsequent plenary session during which the recusal of Judge Díaz and myself will be decided. If, in addition to this, you subsequently decide to divide the decision regarding Judge Díaz’s challenges and mine, anticipating hers, you and Judge Díaz will participate in my challenge, but I will participate neither in yours nor to that of the judge. “Judge Díaz,” he explains. As in the dissenting vote he cast on the occasion of the abstention of former minister Campo, Macías recalls that the distribution of appeals is contrary to the organic law of the Constitutional Court and the organic law of the judiciary. . : “When there are several of the challenged magistrates, the incident is decided by a Chamber in which none of the challenged magistrates participates, so that they do not intervene in the decision of their own challenge or that of others who would have also been challenged. disputed. conservative magistrate insofar as the order criterion followed arouses not only its rejection, but also “a deep concern justified by the intense social importance of the question in which the challenges were raised”. The scheduling criterion followed, he says, “can generate the undesirable appearance of the formation of plenary sessions à la carte to ensure a certain composition, an appearance which increases (because it would provide an argument which, apparently again, explains it ) when taking into account the unusual behavior of the State Public Prosecutor’s Office, whose lack of knowledge of the law cannot be presumed, to choose the irregular moment in which he presented his challenge (even before he had been decided to admit the PP’s appeal). of which Macías is the speaker. According to him, the criterion followed by the president “would establish the nature and give effect to what could be a fraud on the law aimed precisely at causing the asymmetry that I reject and which would explain what I insist on. This is why he considers that it is “necessary to exercise extreme caution not to facilitate speeches which claim that the formation of the Court is due to the exclusion of certain opinions or legal concepts, and not because they have been expressed in the past.” “, something which, from the point of view of the doctrine of our Court, is legitimate and irrelevant, if only for having had them.” This, in his opinion, “would harm the democratic conception of political pluralism which is the basis of the formula for selecting judges of this Court contained in our Constitution”, which is why he is asking for it during next week’s plenary session, during which he. is only planned to study the recusal of Conde-Pumpido, that the other two be presented, or, if this cannot be scheduled for this Tuesday’s meeting, that they be postponed to another plenary session so that the three can be seen together.
Conservative Macías warns Conde-Pumpido: “à la carte plenary sessions” are a fraud on the law
RELATED ARTICLES