The draft amnesty bill registered with Congress by a socialist group faces little resistance in its wording, but its purpose remains murky. The central question is whether its main objective is to quell political tensions in Catalonia or if it is largely a political maneuver to win votes in that region. Experts from the universities of Alicante and Elche provide divergent views on whether such laws require constitutional authority and where parliamentary power ends, warning against underestimating the risk of sidelining the judiciary. These perspectives come from a panel of constitutional scholars consulted for this article.
Pepe Asensi, professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Alicante, notes that while jurists differ on the issue, a law like amnesty does not violate the Constitution as long as it stays within Magna Carta limits. A PSOE senator until the last legislature had stressed that such laws fall within the parliament’s competence and do not need prior authorization from the Constitutional Court.
Translation
“What falls to the court is the interpretation of the Constitution that recognizes the possibility of applying amnesty,” Asensi states. He argues that the bill does not infringe rights and its main aim is to address a political problem within Catalonia while respecting the constitutional framework. “The goal is to move beyond the ongoing political and legal clash,” he adds.
Manuel Alcaraz, a constitutional law professor at Alicante, aligns with a nuanced approach that distinguishes political questions from legal ones. Referring to a former Compromís minister, he says criticisms about the end of the period may be rooted in partisan or ideological interests. He sees no legal obstacle to amnesty and notes that Spain has faced other controversial moments in its history without erasing the rule of law.
From there, Alcaraz cautions about the political deals under way and the rising tension, wondering whether it would be wiser to engage with certain regional groups rather than others. He observes that many citizens might have voted differently if they had known certain elements of the amnesty, and adds that it would be natural for some to change their stance if they anticipated support from more extreme parties.
Mazón asks Sánchez to urgently convene presidents’ conference on amnesty
Victoria Rodríguez, a political science professor at Miguel Hernández University in Elche, evaluates the pardon from two angles: those who view it as lawful and those who question its legality. Given the breadth of people involved and the time span it covers, some compare it to a general amnesty, which some argue is incompatible with the Constitution. She cautions that there is a risk of overlooking the judiciary and calls for heightened diligence in the amnesty process.
Rodríguez notes that the perceived generosity of the offer has sparked significant alarm and argues it cannot be likened to the 1977 situation, when a similar gesture emerged under a different constitutional framework that predated the current Magna Carta. She adds that critics who claim the government sides with constitutional violators are expressing a deeply negative view, according to her assessment.
Cardenal Herrera of Elche, Miguel López, a constitutional law professor at CEU, points out that inconsistencies surrounding amnesty are a natural part of the legal debate. “Although the law is well drafted, the reasons given are not strong enough. The round of doubts seems aimed at surmounting an exceptional situation in Catalonia, not at gathering the votes needed for investment,” he argues. López suggests that the political tension in Catalonia documented in the draft does not align with the usual doctrines followed by the Constitutional Court. He also highlights that the described emergency procedure may be a tactic to shorten the legislative debate.