The Constitutional Court has dismissed Amparo’s appeal by Cayetana Álvarez de Toledo (PP) against Congress President Meritxell Batet’s decision to withdraw her phrase “son of a terrorist” from the Congressional files in May 2020 by then-government vice-president Pablo Iglesias. The court holds that Batet’s decision was neither arbitrary nor discriminatory. The judgment, for which the judge César Tolosa from the conservative sector was rapporteur, assumes that the word “terrorist” has a very strong pejorative content and that the attribution of this condition to Pablo Iglesias’ father implied a clear discredit towards him, when he missed the parliamentary debate. The President of the Congress asked Álvarez de Toledo to withdraw this statement, which the popular MP refused, stating that Iglesias’ father was “a fighter of the FRAP”, an acronym for the Anti-Fascist and Patriotic Revolutionary Front, and refused to withdraw it.
The judgment underscores that a Member’s freedom of expression is essential for his or her representative work, but is also subject to constitutional control.
The second vice-president of the government, Pablo Iglesias, and the spokeswoman of the PP, Cayetana Álvarez de Toledo, during their speech at the plenary session on government scrutiny on May 27, 2020.
The events occurred on May 27, 2020, during an interpellation at the government control session, in which Álvarez de Toledo, to the name “Marquise” repeatedly given to him by Iglesias, replied: “You are the son of a terrorist. He belongs to that aristocracy: that of political crime.” Congress President Meritxell Batet asked the former PP parliamentary speaker to remove these words from the journal of the session, but she did not. Batet agreed to remove those words from the session journal in the face of Álvarez de Toledo’s rejection.
The Constitution argues that the word “terrorist” has a pejorative meaning of maximum intensity and the attribution of this condition to Pablo Iglesias’ father entailed a clear discredit to him, who was alien to parliamentary debate. For this reason, according to the Guarantee Court, Batet’s decision cannot be considered arbitrary. However, he emphasizes that the approval of the Chamber Presidency is subject to constitutional scrutiny, adding that a deputy’s freedom of expression is an integral part of who has acquired this condition.
In January, Álvarez de Toledo won the lawsuit brought against her by Pablo Iglesias’ father, who took popular politics to court for repeatedly calling him a terrorist in Congress and the press. Francisco Javier Iglesias Peláez had sued politics for violating his honor. The Head of the Court of First Instance No. 3 of Zamora, where the trial took place, considered that not only did Álvarez de Toledo’s right to freedom of expression prevail in this case, but that his testimony was “undoubtedly of general interest to the References was to the historical and political past “Spain” had a “factual basis” and because Pablo Iglesias himself called his father a “Frapero” because he was a member of this organization. This was acknowledged at trial by Iglesias’ father himself, although he assured that he left militancy when FRAP opted for armed violence.
What affects most is what happens closer. Subscribe so you don’t miss anything.
subscribe to