The Constitutional Court has not yet decided on Puigdemont's amnesty.

Madrid / BarcelonaThe strategy orchestrated by the political and judicial right to torpedo the amnesty has marked the first year of its existence, and its fruits will be seen in the first ruling issued by the Constitutional Court. The report prepared by the body's vice president, the progressive Inmaculada Montalbán, supports the constitutionality of the law but does not assess its application to the crime of embezzlement, which is what affects Carles Puigdemont and the rest of the leaders of the Process. In the nearly 200-page text sent to the other members of the court on Monday, the conflict opened in the Supreme Court with the pro-independence leaders is not addressed because no mention was made of the PP's appeal, which is what is now being resolved.

"The PP has implemented a very good strategy [of delay], which is to say nothing about the embezzlement. They have been very careful not to get involved. And if they don't say anything about the embezzlement, we can't make any comments about it, not even by putting our foot in it, saying that it has to be interpreted this way or that way," a member of the Constitutional Court emphasizes. Montalbán's report has only confirmed a circumstance that was already foreseeable, as Puigdemont's lawyer, Gonzalo Boye, pointed out this weekend. in an interview in the ARAThe only thing that needs to be addressed when responding to appeals and questions of unconstitutionality is precisely whether the rule fits into the Constitution, and Montalbán's argument is that it does, which is a first step, although it has no direct impact on the embezzlement case before the Supreme Court.

The investigating judge, Pablo Llarena, intends to remain silent regardless of what the Constitutional Court (TC). The amnesty law stipulates that precautionary measures—arrest warrants or prison orders—must be lifted until a decision is made on whether to close a case that may be covered by the law, and even while the Constitutional Court or the Court of Justice of the European Union decide on its legality. This was the loophole Puigdemont was seeking to return without being arrested once the amnesty was approved by Congress, but the People's Party (PP) challenged it in its appeal, questioning the reduction in the judges' discretion.

But Montalbán's report also supports this precept: "It must be concluded that the immediate lifting of the precautionary measures is not a mandate open legis nor is it a direct impersonation or interference by the legislator in the jurisdictional work, given that the same provision explicitly calls for judicial mediation." Thus, Llarena has dodged this by interpreting that the case of 1-O is not amnestiable because embezzlement is excluded according to the wording of the rule and, therefore, from the wording of the rule. TC will not be able to enter into the debate on embezzlement until it resolves the appeals for protection of those affected.

It is not a general pardon

Beyond that, Montalbán's report endorses the breadth of the law and dismantles the vast majority of the PP's arguments. "The legislator can do anything that the Constitution does not explicitly or implicitly prohibit," the report states, making it clear that the amnesty and the general pardon—the latter, however, banned in the Constitution—are "distinct institutions." Another criticism from the right is that the funding motivation for the amnesty was a "political transaction to ensure the investiture of the Spanish prime minister," but the judge asserts that political pacts are "constitutionally irrelevant" and that what matters is what the law says: "The political process of creating a proposed independent Catalan state has meant democracy, both from a social and institutional perspective. This process and the social fracture it gave rise to can be considered extraordinary events that justify granting an amnesty."

The report only considers three minor grounds of unconstitutionality raised by the People's Party (PP) in its appeal. The main amendment relates to the scope of the law and establishes that the amnesty should include not only those accused of demonstrating in favor of independence, but also those who demonstrate against it. Regarding the temporal scope of the law, Montalbán modifies the point that stipulates that amnesty may be granted for acts that ended after the deadline of November 13, 2023, the day the law was registered in the Congress of Deputies. According to the report, this lack of definition may be unconstitutional and, therefore, only acts occurring between November 1, 2011, and November 13, 2023, may be granted. Third, it also corrects a procedural issue and forces the Court of Auditors to hear popular accusations before closing the case.

Satisfaction in Moncloa

The final decision will be made in the Plenary session of the court scheduled for June 24, 25 and 26With the report on the table, the Spanish government has approved these initial details. "I hope, trust, and wish that the ruling will be positive, but with the utmost respect," stated the Minister of Digital Transformation and Public Service, Óscar López, while defending that the judicial disregard for the Trial "has already had positive effects" and has served, in his opinion, to "normalize political life in Catalonia." Whatever the Constitutional Court says, for the PP, the amnesty remains "immoral" and a "political payment" from the PSOE in exchange for Junts' seven votes. "It is political corruption," said the party's spokesperson, Borja Sémper, in a press conference.

The president of ERC, Oriol Junqueras, tweeted to X that this is "one more step on a path that is always too long." "When a court turns innocent people into guilty people, everything possible must be done to restore justice," he wrote. In contrast, the spokesperson for Junts, Josep Rius, simply said in a press conference that it was a "leak" and that they would not make "any assessment" until "the exact text" is known. Thus, he warned that "the problem with the amnesty is not its constitutionality, but the defiance of the Supreme Court." For his part, the spokesperson for Comuns in the Parliament, David Cid, said that "what the PP and Vox did not win at the polls, they will not win in the Constitutional Court."