"The Constitution does not prohibit amnesty": the debate in the Constitutional Court continues in favor of the law.

Madrid"The Constitution does not prohibit amnesty." This was the conclusion reached this Tuesday by the majority of the Constitutional Court (TC) judges, who continued to deliberate on the rule of judicial oblivion. The draft by the Vice President of the Constitutional Court, Inmaculada Montalbán, considers that it does fit.

Therefore, the amnesty is an exceptional measure. Thus, they dismiss the arguments of the PP's appeal, which considered that the Cortes were exceeding their functions by drafting the amnesty without having attributed jurisdiction, and that this affected the judicial function. The judges will continue to debate this in the next session, after having passed the first phase of debate. In fact, sources from the court believe they could reach a conclusion on the law this Wednesday or Thursday. "They are progressing at a good pace," they declare.

It should be noted that the People's Party (PP) filed an appeal of unconstitutionality against the entire law—which is why they first debated its fit within the Constitution—and, secondarily, challenged other parts of the law. Therefore, once the members of the Constitutional Court decide whether or not the specific law fits within the Constitution, they will move on to discuss the technical challenges also highlighted by the PP.

Such as, for example, whether or not the law violates the principle of equality by decriminalizing only conduct related to the Process. Or, the same sources add, they must debate the scope of the law, because the popular appeal warned that it was "arbitrary" and the time period encompassing the amnesty was not sufficiently defined. In her opinion, although the law expires in 2023, it could always be argued that new facts related to the 2017 process could be introduced. Likewise, the PP's appeal also considered the immediate lifting of precautionary measures (such as prison orders) in pro-independence cases unconstitutional because they believed it violated the law.

However, many of these arguments are already refuted in the draft ruling prepared by the Vice President of the Constitutional Court, Inmaculada Montalbán. This draft is currently being debated by the full Constitutional Court and must issue a final ruling. In this text, Montalbán considers that the amnesty law does not violate the principle of equality nor is it arbitrary because it is not directed solely at pro-independence ideology, as the PP claims, but at specific actions and behaviors related to the November 9th referendum and the October 1st referendum. Thus, while admitting that the law benefits those who throw stones at a Process demonstration more than at an eviction, the draft states that the protection of the law is not based on ideology but on the context of the Process. To support this, it cites the example of the amnesty granted to protesters, but also to police officers who sought to suppress these demonstrations, which has already been granted since the law's approval.

It remains to be seen whether the progressive majority will buy the same arguments that Montalbán has put forward in the draft ruling to overturn the PP's appeal. Sources familiar with the debate within the court suggest that there may be changes to strengthen the legal arguments. That is, without changing their meaning, but ensuring their solidity.