Sunday, October 2

The death of Law (of villains and cowards)

If everything seems so muddled that it is unintelligible, follow the advice that a magistrate once gave me, one of those who prestigious the puñetas: when an apparently sensible and complex argument in Law leads to absurd solutions, the best thing a good jurist does is to review the story line because it sure is wrong. Law is not an art to engender nonsense but to solve conflicts and, ultimately, to do justice, so it is suspicious that neither one thing nor the other is derived from its correct use. Nor is the Law, as they want to instill in them in a not very casual way, so interpretable that it becomes capricious, finalist, unpredictable, alien to the logical reading of the rules or directly arbitrary. That is not Law, that is the loss of meaning of Law, its death, and with it that of our political form and that of democratic society as we conceive it.

If the punishment for kicking a police officer, so serious that it is resolved with compensation to the victim of € 50 and with a prison sentence so low that it does not exist in the Penal Code, so it must be commuted to 540 € of fine, rebounding the loss of a deputy certificate, which represents the most sacred of a democracy, and which affects the fundamental right of representation of the deputy and his voters, that is, if the punishment ends up being the most serious What can happen to a deputy, who is to stop being one, there is something that does not add up. I already said it in ‘We, the people’. Here there is no proportionality or material justice or respect for the minimum guiding principles of Law. Something is wrong and you don’t have to be Papinian to figure it out. Suffice it to summarize that neither the sentence of Chamber II says that the deputy should cease to be a deputy, nor do the lawyers of the Courts rule that this is the result of the execution thereof, nor does Marchena in his strange office of answer dare to write that this is what to do, nor do the Congress Regulations contemplate the loss of the status of deputy but for four causes and none are given in that sentence. What happened then?

The action of the Justice in this case is aberrant. It takes seven years to judge a fact objectively of little relevance, no matter how enthusiastic one may be about the order, and he wants it to carry consequences that could never have occurred had it been pronounced in time. In the sentence, he abandons the principle of “in dubio pro reo”, as two of the members of the court recall and later, out of the blue, he seems to demand a form of execution that he himself cannot apply since it is his responsibility not only to judge, but also execute what is judged.

It is not the only one, although it is the most outrageous.

The president of the Congress, Meritxell Batet, has decided, under her sole responsibility, to undertake an action as serious as withdrawing the minutes from an elected deputy: without bringing the Bureau of Congress together and putting it to a vote, without paying attention to the report of the lawyers in the Cortes who are the experts by opposition in parliamentary law and without anyone having demanded or could demand, at least that we know, that they do so. Presiding over a legislative chamber is not a matter for lax or cowards. Batet has swum many times in equidistance – as when, after an unacceptable behavior by Vox, he preferred to reprimand all the deputies equally – and now he falls face down into parliamentary ignominy. You should not be worried because you have the unprecedented support of your party, which I will talk about later, and with the sly approval of the one who must be believed, perhaps with reason, the most powerful man in Spain.

To file a complaint with the president of Congress for this is stupid and a bad strategy, even if Podemos does it. It will not be admitted for processing because it does not have the slightest legal sense. It does not seem very smart to give what you consider your whip a free element to whip you and that is what Podemos or a part of Podemos does or, in the end, the deputy himself, now that nobody wants to take over the authorship of such a fool decision.

Being a minister of the Government of Spain and directly accusing the Supreme Court of a crime in a social network is not knowing what it means to be a minister, not knowing where the lines are and wanting to give absurd tricks and stress a Government that, after all, is what you defend that those who misbehave the law want to do against you: end the government of which you are a part. A minister is not an activist. What I can say, knowing which lines I cannot tread, Ione Belarra cannot say. Look, I’ve said it times and they don’t learn. They are like Janus, they want to be ministers and opinion leaders and oppose at the same time. Go in and go out. We will see that this does not end with another annulment for slander flyby.

An institution cannot be used spuriously to defend a power group or friends. The thing about Lesmes and his court with the CGPJ has no name. To bring together the Permanent Commission – and what authority does the Permanent Commission have for this? – to “take cognizance” of a tweet! amparo what does it mean? That the declaration is not legal but political. The amparo is granted by the plenary session to a judge who has previously requested it. They affirm outraged in their statement that there are already several times, in their endless and strenuous mandate, that they have had to come out in defense of judicial independence, but they forget to say that they always do it to defend themselves, that is, Marchena and theirs while others have to lick their pain alone. They forget to say that Belarra scares them but Concepción puts them on. So brazen is that the members Cuesta, Mozo and Sepúlveda voted directly against it.

A deputy is a servant of the gleba in our poor democracy. In the end it is a number, a voting key. With the lack of respect that Congress itself shows them, it would almost be worth it if the leader of each group had the number of votes that it accumulates. The solution of the suspension of Deputy Rodríguez for a period of a month and a half – putting aside all the legal controversy, which I believe should not have led to even this – would have been less burdensome for a right as basic and fundamental as that of representation and also for parliamentary autonomy and respect for its own rules as the first power of the State, but I am afraid that it would have left the government group with fewer numbers during that period. That is where I frame the laxity of the PSOE with this clear outrage, not wanting problems and not having to look for one more vote during that time. They are wrong. Giving up the inalienable supremacy of the First Power and assuming that it can be handled and altered in this way will end up turning against them. Remember what was done without reason to Atutxa – and so Europe said – and what was done to the Catalans and remember what they admit to be done now. Don’t cry later.

From now on, think about what it means to grant a petition and think about legally arbitrating the temporary substitutions of deputies, as other ordinances collect or give the keys to the Carrera de San Jerónimo to the complainants and the lords of the Supreme Court. that no people have chosen. In this way we are saving the elections also, which, in the end, is about voting well or if not, that others fix what the people spoil.

Hopelessness exhausts. We are in the hands of villains and cowards. The thing about the villains, who have their interests and work for their glory and that of their own, does not surprise me. It is the cowardly thing that infuriates me. All this that I write to you today and that I write to you on other weekends, dozens, hundreds, I would say thousands of people who are silent, know. They are silent even though they know that basic principles are being violated. They are silent and know that the legal assumptions that have been applied are wrong. They remain silent in the certainty that if everything the laws say can be interpreted in one sense and the other way around, if a correct solution cannot be expected, if a result cannot be predicted, then the Law no longer means anything, the Law he has died and they are dedicating his life to a corpse from which only corruption and decay can emanate.

I leave it up to you. Who villain and who coward. Let’s not be surprised if we agree. The truth still exists, even in law.



www.eldiario.es