Article 395 of the current Organic law of the jurisdictionInvoked these days in response to the scandalous heroism of some conservative judges, it says verbatim: “Judges or Magistrates shall not be members of or serve political parties or trade unions and are prohibited from: 1. Directing powers, offices and public officials or official Corporations for their actions He must not congratulate or reprimand, or attend, as a member of the judiciary, any public event or meeting of a non-judicial nature, except for the purpose of flattering the King. or for those summoned or permitted to attend by the General Assembly of the Judiciary. 2. Participate more in legislative or local elections rather than casting your personal vote. However, they will perform the functions and perform the duties required by their positions.”
Despite the clear clarity of this legal mandate, conservative “rebel members” General Assembly of the Judiciary They decided – as retired judge Martín Pallín told them – about an Amnesty bill that they did not know about and that did not concern them at all. If it had not come from such a high judicial authority, this pamphlet would have been considered a simple slander against the obviously unfit party that put them where they are and benefited them by an unexpected extension of their terms of office. If they had threatened to resign like Lesmes, political parties would have had no choice but to lift the blockade.
The progressive judges of the Judges and Judges Association for Democracy and their colleagues of the conservative Judicial Professional Union judges, members of the CGPJ, did not remain silent about this incident: “acting like a partisan actor, [estos consejeros lenguaraces de la derecha] “They damage the image of the independence and impartiality of the judiciary.” They also considered that the amnesty declaration of this institution amounted to an abuse of the legal powers enjoyed by its members and “an encroachment on the exclusive function of constitutionality jurisdiction, which corresponds only to the Constitutional Court.” It is not strange that some well-intentioned lawyers published a very significant article in the press with the following title: «The risk to democracy is not amnesty, but CGPJ.”.
“El Periódico de España” published an editorial on Tuesday in which it described the initiatives adopted by conservative judges as “a violent campaign against Sánchez and the next government.” “There will be an even tougher opposition effort than what happened in the last parliament.” After touching on the reasonable position of the Justices of Democracy, he concluded: “In such cases, beyond the twenty justifications offered by the popular ones, it is clear that the intention to maintain a contract lies behind the decision not to renew the CGPJ. This majority allows them to use the institution as a battering ram against the Executive.”
By all evidence, the encouragement of the conservative judicial leadership is due to the blockade that the PP decided to maintain indefinitely, following Rajoy’s absolute majority and the resulting dominant position in the CGPJ. Arguments against the provisions of Magna Carta to justify such violence are unacceptable; The desire to change the electoral system in the LOPJ, which could be more robust, and the imposition of this condition to agree on a new Council, falls under its own weight when it is known that Rajoy has the opportunity to carry out such a reform – this was proposed by his Minister Ruiz Gallardón, and in the end the Galician did this Didn’t want to do it. Therefore, the truth is that the PP, aware that there are more conservative than progressive judges in the judiciary (some are numerous, others in the minority, as the associations themselves show), wanted to maintain this advantage for political purposes. When it is clear that the country must move in the direction indicated by the political and social majorities, and not in the direction indicated by the judicial elite.