The Constitutional Court endorses the amnesty, and Sánchez boasts about the decision: "Despite the attacks, it was worth it."

MadridAfter unprecedented protests from the judiciary, manifestos, and furious attacks from the right, the Spanish government of Pedro Sánchez can breathe a sigh of relief on at least one issue: the amnesty law. This Wednesday, the judges of the Constitutional Court concluded their deliberations on the judicial oblivion rule and, pending the final vote tomorrow, Thursday, the majority of members support the law's constitutionality, according to legal sources. Since the NATO summit in The Hague, Pedro Sánchez has boasted about the outcome. "We said it would be fully constitutional," he asserted, in response to the criticism the law has received from the outset, both from the right and from the judiciary. "It is very healthy that after two years of debate, people know that the Constitutional Court has assessed the constitutionality of the rule," he said. "Despite the attacks we received as a government of Spain, today it has been proven that it was worth it," he concluded.

In this sense, he defended the amnesty as a mechanism to resolve what Catalonia and Spain experienced in 2017, although it has not yet been applied to the main leaders of the Process. "I inherited a constitutional crisis of enormous proportions. Politics has been overcoming obstacles and finding the solution to a crisis that reached its peak in 2017 but that had been brewing since 2010," he asserted, endorsing that the Process began with the sentencing of the former president. Thus, he called for "looking forward" and not remaining "captive to the past." The CUP (United Left of the People's Party) has refuted this point: "The amnesty has falsely closed the national conflict."

This brings to an end a tortuous journey for the rule on judicial oblivion, which began with the PSOE's pact with the independentists for the investiture of Pedro Sánchez, and which received the green light from Les Corts exactly a year ago: on June 10, 2024, it was published in the Official Gazette (BO). Throughout this process, the amnesty has been subjected to constant questioning from both the right and part of the judiciary. The leadership itself, through the General Council of the Judiciary, censored its idea because it endangered, they said, democracy. With the decision of the Constitutional Court, it is clear that it is fully in line with the Constitution.

The TC is not the first legal oversight body to endorse the amnesty law. During its processing, despite being an advisory opinion, it also received the approval of the Venice Commission, the internationally prestigious body linked to the Council of Europe that provides constitutional advice to the member countries. What the Venice Commission did recommend, and what has not been resolved in recent months, is the opposition's involvement in the process: the People's Party (PP) has remained opposed to the law from the outset, and in fact, it was its group that brought the law to the Constitutional Court. It has also failed to convince the conservative judges of the Constitutional Court itself, who have continued to oppose the law and will issue a dissenting opinion.

Compatibility with European terrorism legislation

Despite the substantive endorsement of the amnesty, according to court sources, changes will be made to the arguments in the draft ruling prepared by the Vice President of the Constitutional Court, Immaculada Montalbán. The conservative judges have maintained a low profile in the debate—they will issue their dissenting opinions—and it has been the progressive side that has opted to propose modifications to the arguments for the constitutionality of the amnesty with the aim of making it more "solid." For example, at the point where Montalbán asserted that the Constitution does not prohibit amnesties and, therefore, endorses them, there has been discussion about adding that this is an exceptional mechanism that has been used in the face of a "constitutional crisis" such as the one that occurred in Catalonia in 2017.

Changes have also been introduced, according to the sources consulted, in the section of the draft ruling that responded to the PP's question about the compatibility of the amnesty law with European terrorism legislation. While the ruling initially did not assess this, the majority of the judges have now decided to do so: they consider the amnesty law to be perfectly compatible with European Union regulations, because that legislation clearly establishes what constitutes terrorism and what is not, and, in this sense, also what falls within and outside the amnesty protections. They also believe that it does not violate European law or the rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union regarding European arrest warrants.

The final vote on the constitutionality of the law is expected to take place tomorrow at around 11:00 a.m. Thursday, according to the sources consulted. Therefore, a final verdict could be reached before lunch. However, the fine print of the ruling will still take a few days to be finalized, as only the final conclusion and a comprehensive press release on the changes made to the initial draft of the ruling, which also upheld the law, will be released following deliberation.

Four days of deliberation

If the forecasts are met, the Constitutional Court judges will have deliberated for four days, one day less than the court's president, Cándido Conde Pumpido, had predicted before issuing the final ruling, as he had allowed for full seats from Monday to Friday this week.

In the deliberations, the progressive majority has gradually prevailed over the conservative majority, as expected. Aside from Cándido Pumpido, the progressive sector includes Inmaculada Montalbán, Laura Díez, María Luisa Segoviano, María Luisa Balaguer, and Ramón Sáez. The conservative sector includes Concepción Espejel, Enrique Arnaldo, César Tolosa, and Ricardo Enríquez. The latter, according to the sources consulted, has been one of the most active judges considered to be on the right during the deliberations.