The president of the TC defends that the ruling on the amnesty be “clear and precise” so that the Supreme Court applies it

MadridWith the permission of the Ceuta crisis and the demands for the right to housing, the Constitutional Court is once again at the forefront of political news. Next week it will approve the ruling that contradicts the Supreme Court's criteria regarding the amnesty law and will require the high court to apply the pardon to the embezzlement attributed to the October 1st referendum. The report prepared by the president of the TC, Cándido Conde-Pumpido, regarding Dolors Bassa's appeal directly orders the high court to backtrack and "declare amnestied" the crime of embezzlement in a "preferential and urgent" manner. Why has he been so explicit? "From what I have read, at times the Supreme Court itself has stated that it would take into consideration the Constitutional Court's doctrine as long as the Constitutional Court had established a clear and precise doctrine. Therefore, we want to establish a clear and precise doctrine," argued Cándido Conde-Pumpido at a breakfast organized by Nueva Economía Fórum.

In this sense, he argued that the recovery of the violated fundamental rights – in the case of the leaders of the 'Procés', these will be the rights to effective judicial protection, to access public functions and positions, and to criminal legality – requires "pointing out" to the Supreme Court with "complete clarity" what the "content" of its decision is. This justification is not accidental. Twenty days ago, Pablo Llarena opened up to lifting the arrest warrant for Carles Puigdemont after the first pronouncement of the Constitutional Court. Sources with access to the Supreme Court consulted by the ARA alleged that it would be necessary for the TC's verdict to be very clear, contain a conclusion "extrapolable" to the leader of Junts, and have "constitutional expressions with repercussion and relevance" in his case. The first ruling will also allow an end to the disqualification of Oriol Junqueras, Raül Romeva, and Jordi Turull.

Likewise, Cándido Conde-Pumpido has made it clear that the Constitutional Court will "immediately" communicate the ruling to the parties and to the Supreme Court, which will be in charge of "making the appropriate decision" and making a move. Pablo Llarena could act ex officio on his own initiative or at the request, for example, of Gonzalo Boye, Puigdemont's lawyer. That said, Conde-Pumpido has avoided committing himself regarding the deadlines: "I am no one to say how long the Supreme Court will take, it is their jurisdiction". And he has recalled that the TC's doctrine is "binding" for "all judges and courts" of the Spanish state. "When the Constitutional Court establishes a doctrine, it must be implemented", he said.

In the background, Josep Maria Jové and Lluís Salvadó are waiting for the Court of Justice of the European Union to rule on the preliminary question presented by the High Court of Justice of Catalonia regarding the amnesty. The TC's ruling could unblock an issue that has been frozen for more than two years.

Cándido Conde-Pumpido took the opportunity to defend the June 2025 ruling that upheld the constitutionality of the amnesty law. He was being listened to by the vice-president of the institution and rapporteur of that historic pronouncement, Inmaculada Montalbán. "We understand that we only fulfilled our obligation," he defended. And he admitted that the amnesty, like any "controversial topic," can "generate criticism and commentary," and that opinions fall within "the scope of freedom of expression".

The "rules of logic and common sense"

The words of Cándido Conde-Pumpido come three days after his draft ruling became known, to which ARA had access, and five days before the plenary session that must approve the sentence. The text, which will be approved next Tuesday, October 6, argues that pardoning embezzlement is "the only conclusion reconcilable" with the "rules of logic and common sense" and with an interpretation of the amnesty that "attends to its spirit and purpose" and its "own genesis". It alleges that the "interpretation fostered" by the Supreme Court is "clearly expansive" and is "opposed" to the "purpose and spirit" of the law. The draft speaks of an "internal contradiction" in the reasoning of Manuel Marchena, whom it accuses of making an "unreasonable" argument.

Also on the table will be the second draft prepared by the conservative José María Macías. Its original wording shared the Supreme Court's criteria, but the progressive majority made him change it. High-ranking sources from the Constitutional Court argue that Cándido Conde-Pumpido decided to bring his text on the same day in order "not to waste more time" and because his draft reflects more "faithfully" and in a more "convinced" manner the majority sentiment of the court.