The General Secretariat of the Senate has disassembled, one by one, all the arguments which supports the agreement of the Congressional Council to reject its “veto” to the reform of Law 7/2014, which favors and will even allow the immediate release of dozens of ETA members who are still serving sentences in Spanish prisons.
A document to which this newspaper had access largely dismantles the main reason given by the lawyers of the Lower House in their “verbal recommendations” to the president, Francine Armengol. [Consúltelo aquí en PDF]
The “frontal and global” rejection of the plenary session of the Upper House last Monday did not come “out of time”. And the Senate legal services demonstrate this through seven examples, to which they respond Pedro Rollanpresident of the Senate.
It is necessary to distinguish here two different controversies. The first is whether the vote of the Senate, which rejected the law by an absolute majority, can considered equivalent to a veto to the standard. The second is even earlier, because Congress maintains that, in any case, I voted 24 hours late regarding “the 20 calendar days” that the Constitution allows the Senate for urgent bills.
The rejection to the Council was pronounced without any report from the lawyers. When the President of Congress refused to accept the Senate’s “veto” of the law that benefits ETA prisoners by reducing their detention period, she did so on the basis of some simple “oral recommendations” from the lead lawyer, Fernando Galindo.
However, Armengol sent a written letter to Rollán, his counterpart in the Senate, on Tuesday afternoon to explain the reasons. [Consúltelo aquí en PDF]
Socialist policy exercises, in just one paragraphthree reasons to reject the communication of “the agreement of the Plenary of the Senate by which the above-mentioned Government bill is rejected, by an absolute majority”.
Namely, the first two refer to conflict number one: whether a negative vote with an absolute majority can be considered a veto. And the third maintains that, in any case, “the rejection of the organic bill would have been produced after the deadline provided for in article 90.3 of the Constitution“.
Both communications are in the possession of this journal. That of the Congress is addressed to Rollán, is signed by Armengol and bears the entry number 27,535 at the General Registry of the Senate, at 9:30 a.m. this Wednesday, October 16.
On time, in accordance with regulations
The timetable for processing the standard, since its entry into the Upper House on September 23, “was informed to the Council of Spokespersons during its meeting on 09/24/2024″, explains the letter from the President of the Senate. “It was sent to the spokespersons of the parliamentary groups, without them or government officials […] express no objection.”
And in this calendar, “the twenty days fixed by the article 90.3 of the Constitution ends on Sunday, it is therefore understood that the deadline is extended until the first following working day, Monday 10/14/24“, he continues.
This is so, according to the application of article 135.5 of the Rules of the Senatewhich reflects it verbatim: “All deadlines included in this article refer to calendar days. In the event that one of these deadlines ends on a non-working day “It will be understood as extended until the next working day.”
Furthermore, the text sent by Rollán to Armengol recalls that “even In the Congress of Deputies the same rule is followed“, although it is not included in its regulations. And this because “what is established in the Law 39/2015of the legal regime of public administrations and the common administrative procedure”.
But in addition, the General Secretariat of the Upper House adds an annex with seven examples of urgent invoices with a due date on a non-working day extended to one working day.
The seven examples
- one in the year 2017under the government of Mariano Rajoy. The Proposed Law which modifies Law 17/2006, of June 5, of public radio and television.
-
Two in the year 2021already with Pedro Sanchez in Moncloa. The bill on urgent prevention, containment and coordination measures to deal with the health crisis caused by Covid-19. And the bill Remote work.
- Another one in the year 2022also with Sánchez in power. The bill amending Law 12/2002 of May 23, which approves the Economic agreement with the Autonomous Community of the Basque Country
-
One more in the year 2023. The bill creating the Independent administrative authority for the defense of financial customers for the extrajudicial resolution of conflicts between financial institutions and their customers.
- And two others in 2024already in this legislature. The organic bill of equal representation and balanced presence of women and men. And the bill creating the independent administrative authority for technical investigation of Rail, maritime and civil aviation accidents and incidents.
The other two allegations
As seen above, the Congress President’s other two allegations that ignore the “autonomous” decision of the Senaterefer to the first of the controversies. In other words, if the vote in plenary session, with a absolute majority of “frontal and global” rejection The law under debate must be “interpreted as a veto”, as interpreted by the President of the Senate, in view of the report of his lawyers.
According to Armengol, this is not the case because, first of all, the Senate “did not communicate that the said House had opposed its veto.” in the terms required by article 90.2 of the Constitution. And secondly, the rejection agreement adopted in the Upper House “cannot be considered as a veto within the meaning of the provisions of the aforementioned article 90.2 of the Constitution and in constitutional jurisprudence“.
But if the first argument were directly inaccurate, it is “a legally weak argument”according to the legal sources consulted.
The truth is that the Senate actually communicated that it had “vetoed” the law that benefits ETA prisoners. And he did it exactly in the terms established by article 90.2 of the Constitution: “The Senate, within two months, from the day of receipt of the text, may, by a reasoned message, oppose its veto or introduce amendments on this subject. The veto must be approved by an absolute majority“.
As you remember, Rollán’s work, “The Constitution only imposes the requirement of an absolute majority” for the Upper House to veto a law submitted by Congress. In any case, it is the Senate Rules which set the deadlines for amendments and veto proposals.
And on the other hand, Nor is it true that “constitutional jurisprudence” prevent the plenary vote with an absolute majority from being considered a veto. This is how Rollán’s first writing, sent to Armengol on the same afternoon of Monday, October 14, develops. It included the 12-page report prepared by Senate lawyers explaining that this matter is absolutely “unprecedented.”
Rollán once again joins this comprehensive opinion to the President of Congress. And warns him that It is neither she, nor the Commission, nor the government which are responsible for the interpretation of constitutionality. of a decision “which corresponds to the organizational and regulatory autonomy” of the Upper House, “but to the Constitutional Court”, where it is summoned to resolve the conflict.
