The legal reform that will benefit, among others, ETA prisoners will end predictably in a new institutional clash between Congress and Senate. After the Lower House Table, with a socialist majority, decided on Tuesday to send the reform to the Official State Gazette (BOE) despite the movement of the president of the Senate, the popular Pedro Rollán — who equated the absolute majority to a “ veto” that had not been registered in a timely manner—, the party of Alberto Núñez Feijóo has threatened this Friday to denounce Congress for a conflict of powers before the Constitutional Court. Of course, in its parliamentary offensive, the PP is one step behind Vox, which On the same Tuesday he went ahead and announced that he would go to the court of guarantees for the same reason. The popular ones have thus been forced to follow the same path to avoid accusations of flattening by Santiago Abascal’s party.
The PP raises the institutional clash in the midst of the already high-voltage confrontation between PP and PSOE due to the lawsuit filed by Feijóo’s formation against the socialists for alleged illegal financing. And with the popular people repeatedly accusing Pedro Sánchez of making spurious use of the institutions. The conflict of powers, regulated in article 72 of the organic law of the Constitution, It was activated for the first time in 45 years of democracy last April due to the processing of the amnesty law. And, just six months later, the PP starts it again after having voted in favor along with all the other groups, including Vox, according to both groups by mistake. This will imply the release of some 40 ETA prisoners, according to victims’ associations, ahead of schedule.
The PP, with an absolute majority in the upper house, promoted this legal formula in April during the processing of the amnesty law, understanding that its powers were being usurped. The conflict of powers occurs when a State body – in this case, the Senate – considers that another body – Congress – has made decisions assuming powers that do not correspond to it. To put it into practice, whoever considers themselves invaded lets the supposedly invading body know and asks it to revoke its decision. If the latter does not respond within a month, or responds by denying the accusation, the person who has raised the conflict can raise the issue to the Constitutional Court so that it can resolve the clash.
This is what the PP did during the parliamentary processing of the pardon measure for those prosecuted by the processes. But the announcement with great fanfare only served to make noise, since the rush caused the PP not to reach the end of the process, that is, to denounce Congress before the Constitutional Court, by not measuring the times well. Now, the popular ones once again give a month’s deadline, counting from the moment the initiative is approved in full, for the Congressional Board to reverse and call a plenary session to debate and lift the alleged “veto” proclaimed by Rollán in Monday’s session and to the astonishment of everyone. “Armengol boycotts the powers of the Senate and usurps the ability to interpret the Regulations of this Chamber, something that does not concern it,” Alicia García, spokesperson for the PP in the upper house, stated this Friday. “He has dispatched this matter without any legal report to support it,” he added.
On Tuesday, and after consulting with the legal services, the Congress Board alleged two reasons for rejecting the claims of the upper house: that the Senate plenary session in which the legal reform was rejected took place outside the deadline established in article 90.3 of the Constitution (20 business days as it is classified as urgent) and that the requirements of article 107.2 of the Regulations of the Upper House were not met, which requires that vetoes be formalized in writing and with reasons.
Rollán responded this Wednesday explaining that the Senate Board, since receiving the text, maintained the 14th as the limit. The Senate Regulations, in its article 135.5, states: “All the deadlines included in this article refer to calendar days. In the event that one of these deadlines ends on a non-business day, it will be understood to be extended to the next business day. This would allow the limit to have passed from the 13th (last Sunday) to the 14th. However, for Congress, this provision “expressly refers to the internal processing deadlines in the Senate” but not to the 20 business days established by the Constitution. in the emergency procedure, according to congressional legal sources. Regarding equating the rejection of the absolute majority to a veto not recorded in writing, Rollán continues to maintain that it is an unprecedented situation without jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court.
