The XV Legislature began with controversial maneuvers by the PSOE in Congress to try to move the Amnesty Law forward and be able to satisfy Junts to achieve the investiture of Pedro Sánchez. In this sense, one of the first maneuvers was aimed at modifying the organization chart of the lawyers of the Cortes, who have a lot of influence in the processing of laws: the socialists placed Fernando Galindo, a high-ranking official in the Sánchez Government, as senior lawyer. to issue a report favorable to Amnesty and he himself tried to clear the way by removing critical lawyers from key positions, such as the Constitutional Commission, where the initiative was initially going to pass. Finally, given the difficulties encountered in removing the lawyer Manuel Fernández-Fontecha from the Constitutional Commission, the law passed through the Justice Commission.
And it is precisely about these changes in the organizational chart that the Supreme Court has ruled in a ruling, to which LA RAZÓN has had access. Fernández-Fontecha himself presented an appeal to the Supreme Court against Galindo’s decision and the Contentious-Administrative Chamber, in a resolution issued last week, has indicated that the senior lawyer’s movement is of “disputed legality.” However, Galindo ended up backing down after displacing Fernández-Fontecha and, finally, replaced the lawyer on December 18, 2023 in the Constitutional Commission after the controversy that arose. For this reason, the Supreme Court’s resolution, in the ruling, is limited to stating that it terminates the process for extra-procedural satisfaction (it does not impose the costs of the process either).
However, in the Fundamentals of Law, the Supreme Court does hint at the rejection of the decision made by Galindo and his defense strategy. In this sense, the Chamber begins to refute Congress’s rejection of the appeal presented by Fernández-Fontecha. The Lower House, in its brief, alleges that the decision taken by Galindo on November 30, 2023 to change the organization chart of the lawyers is not an “administrative act that can be challenged.” The Supreme Court, in line with the position of the Prosecutor’s Office, rejects this position and alleges “the right to effective judicial protection” recognized by the Constitution and “the obvious impact on the professional situation and the performance of one’s duties as a lawyer.”
“It is evident that the new assignment of functions, being excluded from the Constitutional Commission in which he was a member during the last two legislatures, represents and is a decision that, although dictated in the exercise of organizational functions, produces legal effects on the rights and legitimate and professional interests of the now appellant, by providing for the type of professional action that the actor must develop,” states the Supreme Court’s judicial resolution. In this sense, the Chamber warns and limits, in the future, the possibilities of the senior lawyer to strike down critics to place like-minded people in key positions.
Fernández-Fontecha was the first lawyer critical of the Amnesty and showed his rejection of the constitutional fit of the grace measure in various articles published in LA RAZÓN. These texts from the lawyer, who is the oldest member of the body right now (he joined in 1977), led Galindo to make the decision to remove him from the Constitutional Commission, which was called to be the Congressional body that processed the Amnesty Law. The truth is that, likewise, throughout the entire parliamentary process, there were up to three reports prepared by different lawyers that questioned the constitutional fit of the Amnesty Law, so Galindo’s attempts to silence the critics were not They had an effect.
However, that did not matter to the PSOE to move forward, a situation that has already occurred in this legislature on several occasions. For example, with the Parity Law or another law that is now waiting to pass the Senate process, where lawyers have reported that they can incorporate unconstitutional issues and, despite this, the socialists have turned a deaf ear and have moved forward.
The lawyers prepare reports during the parliamentary processing of each law (in the Congress and Senate Bureau and in the Commission) and, generally, they serve so that the deputies can improve the texts, correcting issues that may go beyond the constitutional framework or errors that may occur. then generate contradictions in the legal system, as has already happened several times in recent years.