The opening ceremony of the judicial year this Thursday reflected that tensions between politics and the judiciary do not cease, nor do they seem to have a moment of rest. Justice has become fertile ground for transferring conflicts and debates typical of other institutions to this sphere. We must speak of politics in generic terms because the Government is not the only party concerned nor the exclusive protagonist of this situation. And regarding the judiciary, there is no sign of self-critical reflection on the excesses and errors that may have been committed.
Read more Ken Paxton, Trump’s riskiest bet to not lose Texas to Democrat Talarico
The Supreme Court president herself, Isabel Perelló, referred to the accumulation of vacant positions she found upon taking office. They had not been filled because the General Council of the Judiciary doubled its term — from five to ten years — to try to maintain conservative dominance in the Supreme Court and other instances. This was during a period marked by shameful images of judges and magistrates appearing at the doors of various courthouses to protest against a law under consideration in Parliament, the amnesty law.
The doubts that persist in political and judicial circles about the definitive application of this law show that this is still an unresolved issue, despite the clear successive rulings of the Constitutional Court and the Court of Justice of the European Union. It was a very present issue in the discussions following the event. The Supreme Court prolonged the uncertainty by not applying the amnesty to the crime of embezzlement, with the idea that it is excluded from this possibility because the leaders of the independence process enriched themselves by not financing their separatist projects with their own assets. The Constitutional Court will begin deliberations on the requests for protection filed against this decision on the 22nd. But the final word will be with the Supreme Court, which must apply the doctrine of the rulings — there are several appeals — issued by the guarantees body. The precedents do not allow us to be sure if we are in the final chapter of the political struggle over this law.
Another issue reflecting the persistence of tensions concerns the grandchildren’s law. On the very day of the judicial year opening, the content of the rulings limiting the rights of descendants of Spaniards who left the country between 1936 and 1955 was notified, that is, during the Civil War or the long period in which its consequences were especially harsh. These rulings leave in limbo the votes of tens of thousands of people who have requested to benefit from this law. The Supreme Court’s thesis is that there is a “well-founded danger” to the “objectivity and transparency of the electoral process.” It is to be understood that a similar risk exists with the suspension of rights agreed upon. To avoid this, what is required is that the Contentious-Administrative Chamber issue a ruling on the substance of the matter as soon as possible. Otherwise, the “irreversible damage” may have been caused to those prevented from exercising their right to vote.
Meanwhile, the speeches of the Supreme Court president and the Attorney General, Teresa Peramato, reiterated the complaints and lamentations derived from the accumulated tension. Perelló defended and claimed the independence of judges, identifying the judiciary as a “counterbalance to the other powers of the State.” But one may ask whether in this exercise the concurrence of impartiality and the absence of political or even partisan bias is always confirmed. It is significant that, in parallel, the Supreme Court president asked judges and courts in her speech for “restraint in the exercise of their powers.”