Juvillà and the disproportion of the courts

BarcelonaAs already happened in the case of Quim Torra when he was dispossessed first of his seat in the Parliament and then of his position as president of the Generalitat, in the case of the CUP's Pau Juvillà the disproportion between a conviction for disobedience for keeping some yellow ribbons in the window of his office in Lleida's city hall and the practical consequences, which are to lose his seat, is totally out of place. And this is leaving aside the fact that the sentence itself is questionable because it drives a collision between a supposed right to neutrality of public space during elections with a fundamental right such as freedom of expression. The fact is that once again we are witnessing the interference of the judiciary and a new political-legal battle with an uncertain outcome.

First of all, it should be noted that the Catalan Parliament is right to refuse to suspend Juvillà until there is a final ruling, because this is what is stated in the House's rules. However, the precedent of Torra's case, and more recently the attitude of the Supreme Court in the case of former Unidas Podemos MP Alberto Rodríguez, who was disqualified by a derisory sentence that caused a strong legal debate in the Spanish Parliament, does not allow us to have much hope in the appeal that Juvillà will now present. It is very likely that before then the Central Electoral Board will pronounce itself, which would accentuate the sense of injustice, since this body does not belong to the judiciary and its members are appointed by political parties.

Catalan Speaker Laura Borràs has promised not to withdraw Juvillà's seat until the sentence is final, that is, until the Supreme Court decides on the appeal. We will have to see what happens if the Electoral Board wades in and endangers the validity of Parliament's votes. The legal defence of the autonomy of the Parliament has to be carried out in all possible judicial instances, including European ones, but a deadlock that could harm the approval of important laws or projects for citizens as a whole, such as budgets, must be avoided.

This reasoning was followed by CUP in the case of the former mayor of Berga, Montserrat Venturós, who stood down to serve her sentence and not endanger the governance of the town. Similarly, Quim Torra left the Palau de la Generalitat voluntarily, and thus complied with the disqualification so as not to interfere in the ordinary functioning of the institutions of self-government.

Since the beginning of the Independence bid, the general rule for pro-independence politicians has been that they had to face the consequences of their confrontation with the State personally and individually, and protect civil servants and citizens. As a consequence, they accepted prison or exile as another form of their political struggle. It should be no different now.