Puigdemont, in the hands of the Constitutional Court

MadridPuigdemont is once again in the hands of the Constitutional Court. He was in that position in the first instance until the court upheld the amnesty law. This has already been achieved, but it is not enough. Once this stage is over, the important thing is how the appeal for protection of constitutional rights he has filed with the same judicial body will be resolved. The response will not arrive for several months, but it may not be the final chapter. For now, the Constitutional Court is in no hurry to issue a ruling. It has no specific deadlines, and before discussing whether or not fundamental rights were violated in this case, it must first hear the parties involved. Furthermore, Puigdemont's request for a precautionary measure to lift the prison order, which remains in effect if he sets foot on Spanish territory, will not be modified immediately. The precautionary measure requested by the defense—led by lawyer Gonzalo Boye—is not one that usually succeeds. Quite the opposite.

In fact, the court will begin to fully address the appeals for protection from the leaders of the Process upon their return from the holidays. It should be noted that Oriol Junqueras and Jordi Turull, as well as Toni Comín and Lluís Puig, have also filed appeals. Explicitly or implicitly, the judicial body will now make it clear that the current situation remains in place and, therefore, Puigdemont may be arrested if he appears anywhere in Spain, because the arrest warrant remains in effect. The most important part will come later. The leader of Junts has been living in Belgium for almost eight years, and it will be there that he will find out whether the Constitutional Court finally considers that his fundamental rights were violated by not being able to benefit from the application of the amnesty law. The recent ruling certifying the constitutionality of the law makes no reference to the Supreme Court's decision to deny the pardon for the crime of embezzlement. But now it will have to rule. What is on the table, therefore, is whether the Constitutional Court will again correct the Supreme Court, as it did in the rulings that overturned the convictions in the Andalusian ERE case.

Puigdemont's appeal absolutely calls into question the Supreme Court's decision. If the Constitutional Court accepts this position and grants him protection, the matter will once again be in the hands of the court that investigated and tried the case, which will have to implement the ruling of the guarantee body. The Supreme Court has already stated that it remains open to consulting the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) if the Constitutional Court decides that embezzlement should be included among the crimes eligible for amnesty. Therefore, hypothetically, it could happen that European justice will once again enter the scene when the Constitutional Court's ruling is announced. The CJEU now has four requests for review, on which a hearing has already been held. Spain has asked this court to reject the argument that the amnesty infringes upon European law. And the European Commission itself has said that its financial interests were not harmed by the acts subject to pardon. The reasonable course, therefore, would be for European justice to remain outside the implications of the amnesty on the internal Spanish debate. It seems likely to me that the Supreme Court is about to open a new, more moderate phase on the most politically charged cases. Ultimately, it would be logical for the Constitutional Court to have the final say on the amnesty and for no one to agitate for the reopening of the controversy. Ultimately, this is also what is best for Feijóo, who would thus have a clearer outlook in Catalonia if he wins the next elections.

The Cerdán and Montoro Cases

While elections await, the country seems like a sieve. All the holes are leaking through which various types of corruption pass, creating a discouraging picture. We had a PSOE party with its neck in water, pushing initiatives to try to recover from the Cerdán-Ábalos-Koldo affair, when alarm bells went off in the PP and a former finance minister, Cristóbal Montoro, was forced to leave the party in a matter of hours. The situation is a tragedy for the two major national parties, but also for the country. Now we must ask ourselves how the Socialists and Popular Party (PP) will manage to ask citizens for the useful vote when the general elections are called. What will Sánchez and Feijóo talk about in the face-to-face debate that should open the campaign? And on what terms? Could we tolerate them reproducing the usual tone and content of parliamentary sessions, according to the "and you more" manual?

If this continues, it will become increasingly difficult to make sensible predictions about what might happen in the elections, because here everyone is firing at will, seeking the maximum possible level of destruction of their adversary. The problem isn't the demanding criticism, but the concentration of fire on a single main point of discussion: the corruption of others rather than their own, which is dismissed as a case of betrayal and deception. The consequence is that trust in the most important political forces, which are so because of their decisive influence in forming majorities, can be reduced to a minimum. And thus we are also dragging down the credibility of a good number of institutions, turned into scorched earth by polarization and populism.

It is this permanent tension between the Socialists and the Popular Party, with no room for any kind of pact, that has been spreading to the functioning of these institutions, particularly those of the judiciary. Vetoed by the judicial right, two progressive Supreme Court justices—Ana Ferrer and Pilar Teso—have had to withdraw their candidacies to preside over the criminal and contentious divisions, respectively, in order to facilitate an agreement with the conservatives. The General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ), the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Court, the Court of Auditors, and the Public Prosecutor's Office are the scene of a battle that mirrors that of the two major parties. The fight against the two-party system has created other problems and other monsters, because the fragmentation has had paralyzing effects on many matters, mainly those related to the third branch of government, the judiciary.