THE State Attorney accuses the Supreme Court (TS) of having used arguments of a “political nature” and not “legal” in its question of unconstitutionality concerning the amnesty law raised before the Constitutional Court (TC) chaired by Cándido Conde-Pumpidoformer state attorney general at the time José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero.
The state legal services expressed this opinion in a letter dated October 2 in which they request that this question be inadmissible or, if admitted, that it be rejected. The public prosecutor thus responded to the request that the Supreme Court addressed to the Constitutional Court on July 24. The High Court questioned the Court of Guarantees on the constitutionality of article 1 of the Amnesty lawknowing that it violates the right to equality and the principles of legal certainty, prohibition of arbitrariness and jurisdictional exclusivity.
Once the body chaired by Pumpido admitted the question of unconstitutionality on September 11 by unanimous decision, the Constitutional Court can now only deal with the subsidiary request, that is to say it cannot that take into account the writings of the Lawyers’ Office to reject the question. » asked the Supreme.
The text of the State judicial services has 37 pages in which the Supreme Court is criticized for having “developed a series of political and doctrinal arguments”. And he believes that “they far exceed the legal-constitutional nature of a question of unconstitutionality”.
The Law Firm also emphasizes that there are substantial “defects”, since it considers that the Supreme Court “does not explain to what extent a specific provision of Article 1 of the Law is applicable to the case, in -beyond a brief mention”. “It does not specify to what extent it should be applied and the decision depends on it,” he adds.
The State legal services also highlight the “formal defects” which they believe existed in this matter. “Its content seems more typical of a appeal for unconstitutionality by calling into question the law as a whole,” they explain.
Thus, the thesis of the Lawyers’ Office is that the text presented by the Supreme Court “is limited to saying” that “the law as a whole is unconstitutional, but does not prove the relevance That said, the manifestation is intended for the specific case. “This consideration and those included in the said article have an incontestable political character,” he underlines.
“This is not a discriminatory measure”
The Law Firm justifies that “the difference in treatment provided for by law is not a discriminatory measure” because it explains that the rules must only grant “equal treatment” to cases which are actually equal and that this case does not is not comparable to the others. .
“We must start from the particular character of this standard: it is an exceptional and singular standard. This is not a minor issue, since this particularity is precisely what justifies differentiated behavior between citizens,” he explains.
On the other hand, he assures that “the law has no impact on the separation of powers, since in any case the Judicial “decides whether the persons who fall within the scope of the law meet the conditions for it to be applied to them.”
“The only thing that can still be deduced is an ideological divergence from the law insofar as it seems to assert that the enactment of an amnesty law, which, in the terms in which it is proposed, could be the one – this or another, affects “legal security because the person to whom the regulation is addressed will not know if his behavior will be the subject of criminal proceedings and this will lead to prosecution and, if necessary, a conviction”, affirm the state legal services.
Another of the arguments put on the table to reject the question of unconstitutionality is that “it is posed in future terms, based on speculation about possible parliamentary majorities corresponding to this or that group within the Chambers”.
