A few weeks ago, a Supreme Court decision was issued that decided on an appeal for the amparo by some People’s Party lawmakers in Congress. Against the agreement of the Speaker of the Lower House “Yes I swear” or “I promise” in their formula, which was adopted at the founding session of the Legislature on May 21, 2019. As such, some have reinvented the phrase originally intended to fit the process, adding references to “political prisoners”, “Catalan” or “Basque” Republic, the so-called “Thirteen Roses”, planet or “emptied Spain”. . ”. In deliberation of the said objection, Judge J.Juan Carlos Campo Moreno Former Minister of Justice in the Pedro Sánchez Government, author of the appealed decision due to his personal relationship with the President of Congress.
From the very beginning, the Turkish decision argued that the harmonization formulas used by the deputies in question did not contradict the parliamentary rules, but merely that this violated the right of political representation in Article 23.2 of the Constitution by accepting other statements as oaths or promises by the appellants. Therefore, the majority decision of the Constitutional Court, which centered the debate on this aspect, was that Meritxell Batet’s decision did not violate the fundamental rights of the appellants.
For decades, the Supreme Court has maintained (for example, in its 119/1990) doctrine that it would not be sufficient to simply use the ritual formula to recognize that conformity to the Constitutional requirement has been met (for example, 119/1990), in addition, whatever the reasoning, its own without being accompanied by clauses or expressions that alter, limit or condition its meaning in one way or another. However, it has allowed the addition of words that do not distort the meaning of the oath or promise, as in the imprint, by legal obligation.
In this sense, the statements of the Magistrate of the 2nd Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals during a session of the case that resulted in the conviction of many deputies and public officials on charges of sedition in relation to the events that took place on October 1, 2017. Catalonia is famous. . In one of the interrogations, a witness said that he would answer “with legal obligation”, while the Head of the Department said, “You are sitting there by legal obligation, you have answered your lawyer’s questions with legal obligation, you have answered.” With the legal obligation to the Public Prosecutor’s questions… And now there is the legal obligation to answer the circular… Everything that happened this morning is a legal obligation».
Obviously, Many actions of citizens are carried out because the law orders them. We pay taxes as required by the regulations, as well as complying with the Highway Code or any cohabitation rules governed by applicable and currently approved regulations. Therefore, it is an unnecessary and absurd addition. Article 9 of our Magna Carta already establishes that citizens and Public Powers are subject to the Constitution and the rest of the legal system.
However, four of its members voted against this decision of the Turkish Republic. Ricardo Enríquez Sancho, César Tolosa Tribiño, Enrique Arnaldo Alcubilla and Concepción Espejel Jorquera argue that the appeal should be accepted and that the Court should declare that the rights of the appellants were either incomprehensible or violated due to oaths. By adding irreconcilable reservations or conditions on the condition of conformity with the Constitution, it has brought additions that have lost their meaning and meaning. In reality, these majority opponents feel that the Constitutional Court has avoided deciding on the main issue and has missed a great opportunity to settle the debate over this conflict.
Make such a requirement to access MP or senator status The candidate does not violate the fundamental right to access and hold public office, because that right “does not include the right to participate in public affairs through representatives who do not formally abide by the Constitution” (Constitutional Court decision 101/1983 of 18 November 1983). An oath or commitment is individual and, as the Supreme Court has said, cannot be implicitly fulfilled to enter public office or employment, nor can it be implicitly fulfilled in other duties such as “acting to fulfill one’s duties”. functions”.
However, the Constitutional Court has determined with repeated decisions that this manifestation of those who want to be candidates for public office should not be interpreted as an ideological commitment to the text of the constitution or a complete conformity with its content. Our Constitution respects ideologies that advocate its replacement through prescribed procedural channels as the norm for a plural democratic head of state. In other words, candidates are committed to respecting the legal system even if they advocate its reform and their rhetoric differs from the rules in force at any given time.