The governing body of the Congress of Deputies, its board, will approve a legal report tomorrow that labels the unprecedented dispute of powers between the two Chambers approved by the Senate last week as “inappropriate” in the processing of the amnesty law. The report concludes that the Senate’s action, where the PP has an absolute majority, “does not constitute a conflict of attributes but, in its case, a unconstitutionality appeal.” It is deemed inappropriate and even an interference for the Senate to modify a decision of the Congress – the initial approval of the amnesty – that has been adopted in the exercise of its established functions in the Constitution.
The Senate approved last week – with 148 votes in favor (144 from the PP, 3 from Vox and one from Coalición Canaria), the abstention of UPN and the opposition of the rest of the Chamber (112 senators) – to initiate a dispute of powers between both Chambers, an initiative that had never occurred before. The PP of Alberto Núñez Feijóo had already warned, since the beginning of this XV Legislature and since the PSOE assumed the amnesty law demanded by the independence parties, that it would use all instruments and mechanisms at their disposal to try to block and sabotage that norm.
The Congress had until May 11 to respond to the Senate’s request but has chosen to do so as soon as possible, among other reasons because the Presidency of that Chamber wants to quickly close what they consider a partisan use of the institution by the PP. Once the Congress has rejected the dispute, the Senate – that is, the PP, which has an absolute majority in that Chamber – must decide whether to take the next step: go to the Constitutional Court. The report that the Congress’ board will endorse is based on several Constitutional Court rulings to argue that the vote on March 14 in which the lower Chamber approved the amnesty bill is not “fit for the dispute of powers.” In that sense, the Senate’s initiative is even categorized as “invasive.”
The president of the Congress, the socialist Francina Armengol, advanced her position early this Monday: “We have received the request and we are going to respond with institutional loyalty, with the understanding that must exist between the Chambers, without politicization but trying to maintain the institutionality of the Congress to respond rigorously and always thinking of the citizens,” she said. The document that the Congress’ board will approve also questions the Senate’s underlying arguments, that the amnesty constitutes “a constitutional reform or an unconstitutional law.” This premise, says the Congress, “once again highlights that the true purpose of the dispute raised is to seek a pronouncement on the constitutionality of the norm by the Court, which is not appropriate at this stage of the legislative procedure.”
The Congress rebuts even the formal allegations of the Senate regarding the processing of the amnesty bill and accuses them of “clear interference in the principle of parliamentary autonomy, in its regulatory aspect.” The Board insists that it has exercised its functions as established by the Constitution and that “the Senate cannot, under the appearance of defending its attributes, try to subvert those legitimately exercised by the Congress.” It concludes that the institutional conflict initiated by the Senate “would thus be an artifice to avoid fulfilling its constitutional obligation and usurping the Congress.” The Congress defends that it acted correctly, exercising its own competence, and therefore, “does not proceed to accede to the Senate’s request.” The Board even dares to offer advice to the Upper Chamber: “It is pertinent to urge the Senate to desist from this dispute and fulfill its duty to process the legislative initiative in accordance with the Constitution.”
