The PSOE has asked the Constitutional Court to annul the reform of the Senate rules approved with the absolute majority of the PP in this chamber, in order to delay the adoption of the proposed amnesty law by extending the processing time for this proposal to up to two months. This change implies that the emergency procedure will not be used when the Senate adopts the text approved by Congress. The appeal of the Socialist Group – which will be presented to the Constitutional Register this Tuesday – assumes that the procedure used by the PP in this reform is “fundamentally unconstitutional” and has triggered “an unprecedented crisis in the legislative system”. by changing the constitutional balance between the functions of Congress and those of the Senate. The PSOE believes that declaring the emergency procedure for a bill to be processed in Congress, as has happened, should be implemented “automatically” in the Senate.
The PSOE's challenge is based on the criterion that the reform of the Senate rules promoted by the PP violated Article 90.3 of the Constitution, which “stipulates exclusively that the declaration of urgency “of the projects” has been approved by the government or by Congress. The deputies lay down the Activation of the emergency procedure on a mandatory basis in the Senate.” The appeal states that the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court has repeatedly assumed that this principle applies “not only to draft laws, but also to legal proposals” because “the obvious similarity between both figures emphasize the identity of the foundation of its legal system”. “, said the court in its judgment 7/2002.
More information
The Socialist Group explains that the proposed reform “contradicts the bicameral system provided for in our Constitution”. He justifies this by saying that Article 90 of the Constitution, by regulating the role of the Senate in the legislative process, “creates a system that gives greater weight to the House of Representatives to the detriment of the Senate.” And he again quotes the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court itself, as it does in its Judgment 119/2011 stated that “the two chambers are not in the same position” since “they do not act at the same time and do not have their formal powers.” Exactly the same applies to the law-making process.”
The appeal also states that Article 72.1 of the Constitution establishes, among other expressions of parliamentary autonomy, the power of each House to make its own regulations without interference from other organs or powers of the State. However, the Constitutional Court has adhered to a “stable jurisprudence” in which it has defined the limits of parliamentary autonomy, stating, for example, that “the independence of parliamentary bodies must not become a form of detachment from the standard Supreme,” as explained in its judgment 93/1990.
The PSOE explains that, therefore, the declaration of urgency by the House of Representatives on a specific legislative initiative – including legislative proposals – “involves the automatic application of the emergency procedure in the Senate”. This power of Congress, the challenge continues, “is the result of a certain constitutional understanding of the relations between the two chambers that make up the Cortes Generales and is not subject to any limits that can be protected by the regulatory autonomy of the Senate.”
What influences the most is what happens next. So you don't miss anything, subscribe.
Subscribe to
The PSOE considers the Popular Parliamentary Group's justification “more than questionable” when it states that “the specific aim” of the reform is to create opportunities for the rigor and quality of the legislative function of the Senate and to provide senators with what is necessary Time for analysis and debate of the initiatives received in the Chamber. In this sense, the appeal argues that the Constitutional Court “has found that such an emergency declaration neither deprives the Senate of its functions nor constitutes a restriction on the rights of senators.” In this sense, reference is once again made to the teaching of the Guarantee Body itself, for example to sentence 234/2000, which states that “the reduction of the processing time does not have to lead to a reduction of the constitutional principles that must underlie the legislative process.” Procedure for forming the will of the body, i.e. the Senate.
The appeal states that “declaring the constitutionality of this reform would open the door to a dangerous institutional drift.” The PSOE's thesis is that the Senate “cannot decide unilaterally that it should benefit from the constitutional regulation on the urgency of the reform.” Processing of legislative texts that come from Congress is not affected; nor that discrepancies regarding the processing that a legal text must follow are resolved differently than provided for in the constitution.
The appeal from the Socialist Group in the Senate goes on to say that accepting the PP's unconstitutional procedure would “mean a paralysis of the legislative power, in which each chamber would act with its back to the other, and it could get to the point where the Congress.” would not be forced to send “bills to the Senate.” The challenge bases this warning on the fact that both the above-mentioned Article 90 of the Constitution and Article 120 of the Rules of Congress establish similar and coherent principles, as evidenced by the fact that the latter states that “once a bill has been approved by Congress, its The President “does it” will be forwarded to the President of the Senate with his background and the documents presented during the processing before the Chamber. They refer “exclusively” to the bills. But – the appeal points out – “if Article 90 (of the Constitution) is henceforth interpreted to be limited to bills and not to cover proposed laws, what would compel a President of the Congress to send a proposed law to the Senate?” “final approval?”
The appeal summarizes its opposition to the reform as follows: “In 45 years of democracy, no legal actor has thought to question the fact that the regulation on the legislative procedure in the Senate established in Article 90 of the Constitution does not designate the legislative initiatives as such .” a whole, but only a part.” That it is happening now – adds the Socialist Group – “exposes us to an unprecedented crisis of legislative power, which we in the Socialist Group in the Senate want to avoid; and that is why this constitutional complaint was filed”, based on the conviction that the reform of the Senate rules pushed forward by the PP “is fundamentally unconstitutional”.
Subscribe to continue reading
Read without limits
_