The Table of Congress, with the votes of the PSOE and United We Can, has accepted this Wednesday to process the reform for limit the functions to the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) while it is not renewed, and it has also refused to obtain consultative reports on this modification of the Organic Law of the Judicial Power, as Vozpópuli announced this Wednesday.
The PSOE and United Podemos, authors of the bill, had already obtained the support of ERC, Bildu, Junts, PDeCAT, Más País, Compromís and Nueva Canarias to gather the absolute majority necessary to force it to be enabled. the month of January in order to move forward with the reform.
But they also asked, before Christmas, that the reform be processed through the emergency route, which implies reducing all deadlines by half. This second decision had to be accepted by the Bureau of the Chamber, which has decided this Wednesday Thanks to the six votes of the two government groups, which have been imposed on the three representatives of PP and Vox, according to parliamentary sources informed Europa Press.
Deadlines for amendments
Once the urgent processing has been approved, a first period of eight working days has been set for the presentation of amendments to the bill, a process that was pending since it was taken into consideration by the Plenary of Congress on last December 15th.
The groups that oppose the reform will now have a second chance to try to stop it by asking for extensions or presenting a whole amendment with alternative text, which would force to hold a new debate in plenary, already in February.
In the meeting of the Bureau of Congress, the writings of the Council of the Judicial Power (CGPJ) and the PP have also been rejected, with the votes of the PSOE and United We Can, so that the Chamber ask for advisory reports on the reform.
And it is that, if this revision of the Organic Law of the Judicial Power had been promoted by the Government, by means of a bill, the Executive would have to have requested a report from the Council of State and also from the CGPJ itself, but that process not legally necessary if the way of the bill is used.
On December 17, the CGPJ itself, with the vote of 16 of its 21 members – all of them pending renewal for two years -, asked Congress to issue an opinion on the reform because it affects “the essential core of the powers that the Constitution expressly attributes to it as a guarantee of judicial independence.”
The CGPJ asked to be heard
The CGPJ recognizes that the request for a report of this type is “optional” in the case of bills, but it emphasizes that their opinion cannot be ignored because, any initiative that delimits the essential aspects of the statute of the members of the Judicial Power or that affects the statute or the functions of the members of its The government must be processed “by giving an audience to all the sectors involved.”
That is why he asked Congress to seek the opinion not only of the CGPJ, but also from the European Commission for Democracy through Law (the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe), as well as judicial associations, prosecutors, professional councils and trade unions with implantation in the Administration of Justice and the Communities Autonomous.
After the agreement, the CGPJ, the Popular Group registered a similar request before the Table alleging that the reform promoted by PSOE and United We Can is “manifestly unconstitutional” and that the “maneuver” of processing it as a bill and not as a bill, thus avoiding the mandatory reports of the CGPJ and the Council of State, “clearly shows that it is about imposing an ideological, unprofessional and non-professional government of judges. independent, made up of people with a left-wing ideological tendency. “
Both writings have been studied this Wednesday at the Board of Congress, as well as a report from the legal services confirming that the decision to request reports or not corresponds to the governing body of the Chamber and that there are precedents in one sense or another. With that room for maneuver, the PSOE and United We Can, again with the vote against PP and Vox, they have imposed their criterion of not collecting reports on any body.
*The article has been translated based on the content of Vozpópuli – Home by www.vozpopuli.com. If there is any problem regarding the content, copyright, please leave a report below the article. We will try to process as quickly as possible to protect the rights of the author. Thank you very much!
*We just want readers to access information more quickly and easily with other multilingual content, instead of information only available in a certain language.
*We always respect the copyright of the content of the author and always include the original link of the source article.If the author disagrees, just leave the report below the article, the article will be edited or deleted at the request of the author. Thanks very much! Best regards!