Constitutional Court rejects a question on the amnesty law
The highest interpreter of the Magna Carta has decided not to process a constitutional doubt sent by the Superior Court of Justice of Catalonia. This judicial consultation focused on whether the amnesty legislation could be used for the cases of the former president of the Parliament, Ernest Benach, and the former deputy, Joan Ignasi Elena. The high court's resolution means that, for now, it will not examine the merits of this matter in depth. ⚖️
The origin of the judicial consultation
The Catalan TSJ raised the issue while instructing a criminal procedure against Benach and Elena for the crime of disobedience to the Constitutional Court. The judges were asking if the law that forgives certain crimes linked to the independence process was applicable here. Their main doubt was whether this norm complies with the Constitution by being able to pardon the act of disobeying a sentence from the very court that must now resolve it. 🤔
Key details of the case:- The consultation arose during the instruction of a case for disobedience.
- The Catalan magistrates doubted the constitutional compatibility of the amnesty law for this specific crime.
- The case involves two relevant political figures from the secessionist process.
The court considers that the question was formulated prematurely, as there is no final judgment yet.
The reasons for the rejection
The Plenary of the Constitutional Court, with a particular vote from two of its members, agreed not to admit the question for processing. Their central argument is that the raised doubt does not meet the formal requirements required. Specifically, the high court indicates that the consultation occurred too early in the process, given that there is still no definitive judicial resolution in the criminal process against the two former deputies. Therefore, it understands that this is not the appropriate procedural moment to examine the issue. 📅
Main arguments of the court:- Lack of the necessary formal requirements to raise the question.
- The formulation is considered premature in the timeline of the criminal process.
- There is no final judgment yet that allows evaluating the application of the amnesty.
Consequences and final reflection
This decision indefinitely postpones a ruling on a legal and political matter of great importance. It implies that, for the moment, it will not be clarified whether the amnesty law can pardon disobedience to the Constitutional Court's own sentences. Sometimes, justice must not only be blind, but also patient, and wait for the precise moment to speak. ⌛