Article 395 of the current Organic Law of the jurisdiction is invoked today in response to the upheaval surrounding certain conservative judges. It states plainly that judges or magistrates must not be members of political parties or trade unions and are barred from directing powers, offices, or public officials for their actions. They must refrain from congratulating, reprimanding, or attending, in a personal capacity as members of the judiciary, any public event or non-judicial gathering, unless the purpose is to flatter the King or events approved or summoned by the General Assembly of the Judiciary. It also specifies that they should participate less in legislative or local elections rather than casting a personal vote and, yet, they must still carry out the duties and responsibilities intrinsic to their positions.
Although the mandate is clear, a faction described as conservative rebel members within the General Assembly of the Judiciary pursued a path that surprised observers. Retired judge Martín Pallín urged them to back an Amnesty bill that many believed did not concern their branch at all. If this move had not originated from such a high judicial authority, the pamphlet advocating it would have looked like a plain smear aimed at a party deemed unfit and at a political bloc that had benefited from an unexpected extension of its time in office. Some argued that if the leadership had threatened resignation, it would have forced political parties to lift the stalemate that had been built up around the judiciary’s stability.
The progressive side, including the Judges and Judges Association for Democracy, and their colleagues in the conservative Judicial Professional Union who are members of the CGPJ, did not stay silent. They contended that the actions of certain conservative advisers looked partisan and damaged the perception of judicial independence and impartiality. They also asserted that issuing an amnesty declaration in this manner represented an overreach of the powers exercised by the council and infringed on the exclusive prerogative of constitutional jurisdiction, which belongs to the Constitutional Court. A number of lawyers who hold strong beliefs about democracy published a striking article in the press under a title that underscored a deeper concern: the risk to democracy is not amnesty itself, but the CGPJ’s actions.
El Periódico de España ran an editorial on a recent Tuesday describing the moves by conservative judges as a violent campaign against Sánchez and the incoming government. The editorial warned of an oppositional effort that could outpace what occurred in the prior parliament. It touched on the reasonable stance of the Justices for Democracy and concluded with a candid assessment: while the official line offered several justifications, the underlying motive appeared to be maintaining a political contract that does not renew the CGPJ. This majority, the piece suggested, could use the institution as a tool to pressure the Executive, a tactic that risks undermining the balance of powers.
Evidence points to a pattern in which conservative judicial leadership appears to be aligned with the blockage that the PP has chosen to persist, a stance that stretches back to the era of Mariano Rajoy’s absolute majority and the sway that followed in the CGPJ. Arguments against diluting Magna Carta protections to justify such actions were rejected as unacceptable. Critics also noted that attempts to reform the electoral system of the LOPJ and to embed new conditions for agreeing on a reconstituted Council fell under pressure that simply could not be dismissed as routine. Rajoy’s administration had signaled changes to the system earlier, but practical reforms did not materialize in the way hoped. The impression remained that the party favored preserving its advantage through the judiciary and using it as leverage in political battles. When the nation needs progress guided by the will of broad political and social majorities, the root concern remains that the judicial elite should not steer outcomes beyond its proper constitutional remit, especially in moments of political tension.