The Constitutional Court is following with concern the course of the popular legislative initiative (ILP) presented in the Parliament of Catalonia to demand a bill declaring independence. This proposal has begun its course in the Catalan Chamber, following a first debate at the Table, which was passed with the votes of Junts and the CUP, compared to the abstention of ERC and the opposition of the PSC. The court is waiting for the next steps of the aforementioned initiative, which for now will not be discussed in the plenary session of the autonomous assembly, while its promoters try to gather the 50,000 signatures necessary to continue its processing within a period of four months, Expandable up to six. Constitutional sources emphasize, in this regard, that there is a consolidated doctrine that establishes that the Parliament lacks the powers to debate manifestly unconstitutional initiatives and that the Table has the duty to prevent it.
Court sources highlight that there are various resolutions from 2015 and 2017 that expounded and developed this doctrine, which was reached in two ways. On the one hand, through the initial rulings issued on the independence process, issued in the first of said years once morest the self-determination proposals. And secondly, in response to the appeals for protection presented by opposition deputies – such as those promoted by members of Ciudadanos on repeated occasions. These rulings interpreted that the law prohibited the Parliamentary Board from approving the processing of proposals that were clearly unconstitutional, such as declarations related to the independence of Catalonia, as they were initiatives completely outside the powers of the Chamber.
The court of guarantees has limited itself, for the moment, to closely following the processing of this latest popular legislative initiative, without currently proposing to adopt any measure. Constitutional sources explain that the proposal presented in Parliament must first go through the examination of a commission to control popular legislative initiatives. This body is chaired by the judge of the Superior Court of Justice of Catalonia (TSJC) Francisco José Sospedra, and is made up of two other judges, along with three professors and three jurists appointed at the proposal of the Parliament. From this instance, among other functions, control of the aforementioned collection of signatures in support of the proposal will be exercised. On this initiative, on the other hand, there is already a report from the Chamber’s lawyers in which they warn that its content “does not adhere to the strict scope” of the powers of the Generalitat.
The warning, therefore, has already been launched from the bowels of the Parliament itself. Citizens also asked that they reconsider starting the procedures for the legislative initiative. And, furthermore, the possibility of filing a first appeal for protection is on the table.
If necessary, the guarantee court will take into account the resolutions already issued during the process. One of them imposed fines on public officials of the Catalan electoral administration for failing to comply with orders from the Constitutional Court by not paralyzing the organization of the independence referendum. In parallel, the information was sent to the Prosecutor’s Office so that it might study whether it should initiate criminal actions once morest said public officials.
What affects the most is what happens closest. So you don’t miss anything, subscribe.
Another ruling issued in 2015 resolved the Government’s challenge once morest the Parliament’s resolution that declared “solemnly the beginning of the process of creating an independent Catalan state in the form of a republic.” The sixth point of said resolution, annulled by the guarantee body, said that “the Parliament of Catalonia, as the depositary of sovereignty and as an expression of constituent power, reiterates that this Chamber and the process of democratic disconnection of the Spanish State will not be subordinated to the decisions of the institutions of the Spanish State, particularly the Constitutional Court.” This statement was completely annulled, like the rest of the resolution, and allowed action once morest initiatives that implied a new attempt to debate independence or the right to self-determination.
Another ruling from 2017, for its part, declared the unconstitutionality of one of the disconnection laws approved on September 6 of that year. The court later used this resolution to annul other parliamentary agreements that sought to repeat debates or approve initiatives on independence. In this matter, the State Attorney’s Office argued that the aforementioned disconnection law represented “one of the greatest affronts to the Spanish Constitution that can be conceived by an autonomous Parliament in a democratic State governed by the rule of law.”
to continue reading
_