Eugeni Gay: "Both the PP and the PSOE flout the Constitution every day."

BarcelonaEugeni Gay (Barcelona, ​​1946) speaks to the ARA the day after the Constitutional Court's decision to endorse the amnesty. He was a member of the court from 2001 to 2012 and also its vice president.

If he had been a member of the Constitutional Court now, which side of the plenary session would he have taken?

— I haven't read the ruling yet. I want to do so when it's officially published, but it's impossible to say because you have to be part of the debate. So much has been taken for granted; I'd never seen that before. I didn't like it that way when I was there. However, once we have a ruling from the Constitutional Court, it's binding on everyone.

You have said that amnesty has no place in the rule of law, however.

— I've said that amnesty isn't mentioned in the Constitution. And there have been some who have been tried and convicted, and others who have placed themselves outside the jurisdiction of the State and haven't appeared and will be amnestied. For me, they're not in the same situation, and this violates the principle of equality. I don't like it.

The Constitutional Court argues that since the Constitution does not prohibit amnesty, it is appropriate.

— I want to read the ruling; I want to know what standard the court applied. If this is the sole standard, I find it difficult to understand. There are many things that are not provided for in the Constitution and cannot be done. But I think the important thing is to respect the absolute separation of executive, legislative, and judicial powers. And above them is the Constitutional Court, which requires absolute independence to be able to express its opinion and justify it in law.

Do you think they were able to do so in this case?

— I suppose and hope that was the case.

With this ruling, should the Supreme Court grant amnesty to former President Puigdemont?

— We have a ruling, which is what it is and is binding on everyone. But if the Constitutional Court's ruling says nothing [about embezzlement], it means they've left it in the hands of the ordinary courts.

Do you think the judiciary has rebelled against Congress regarding the amnesty?

— What the judiciary must do is apply the law. If it didn't, it would be wrong, because from that moment on, the Constitutional Court's ruling on the amnesty is binding on all three branches. If it has left anything unresolved in the judiciary, it will resolve it, and if fundamental rights are violated, it will be subject to an appeal for protection before the Constitutional Court.

One of the arguments is that the amnesty serves to resolve the constitutional crisis of 2017.

— There was a very serious violation of constitutional norms when an autonomous community declared independence; this goes against the Constitution. That's why the Constitutional Court's argument seems important to me. We must all restore centrality, and centrality lies in strict compliance with the Constitution... They flout the Constitution every day, both parties, the PP and PSOE, and those who support them. The renewal of the Constitutional Court and the General Council of the Judiciary must be carried out for constitutional reasons. The state budget must be presented in a timely manner. Royal decree-laws are only for urgent cases, and yet they keep doing them... There is no dialogue, no exchange, only predetermined positions. What respect they have for our Constitution!

I see him angry.

— I don't accept this kind of behavior; I'm outraged. They can't keep throwing things at each other all day long. They can't play with the public like this. There are two people who have more responsibility, and the rest take advantage of the fact that they are needed and support them indiscriminately for personal gain. There is a complete lack of respect for the Constitution. The example set by politicians, of all stripes, is partisan, not communal. Democracy is about consensus and compliance with the rules.

Has this dynamic also been transferred to the Constitutional Court and the General Council of the Judiciary?

— It's spreading to the whole of society. Now I see that even representatives of the Church say that elections must be held.

Spanish President Pedro Sánchez said this week that the amnesty ends the 2017 crisis, which began in 2010. You, who served on the Constitutional Court when it issued the ruling on the Statute, do you share this assessment?

— No, not at all. The origin lies in not doing things properly, and some people exploiting this to take the court to court for a ruling. Some believed there were many unconstitutionalities, others very few... I made a personal vow that Catalonia was a nation, naturally we are, we are a nation that made Spain.

But national recognition was repealed by the Constitutional Court ruling...

— They said it couldn't be in the preamble [of the Statute], but against the evidence...

Should Catalonia have a different constitutional framework?

— No, within the State there are particularities and historical rights.

Is there a legitimacy problem with the current Statute of Catalonia, after passing the Constitutional Court's scrutiny? Why hasn't it been endorsed by the population?

— It doesn't have to... the Constitutional Court had the final say. Many laws are passed by Parliament, and then the Constitutional Court can declare them unconstitutional.

What do you think about the strike called by the judiciary?

— Absolutely against it. Justice is a basic necessity, and workers cannot strike. I am also completely against wearing togas while demonstrating; I would never have allowed it. Wearing a toga in the street is a provocation, just as soldiers in uniform cannot demonstrate.