The Supreme Court will not make any move despite the Constitutional Court's endorsement of the amnesty.
Puigdemont's request that the Constitutional Court lift the arrest warrant will open an unprecedented debate.
MadridLa Moncloa, the president of the Generalitat and the independence movement agreed in asking the Supreme Court to apply the amnesty law once and for all to the leaders of the Process once the Constitutional Court confirmed its approval this Thursday, but nothing could be further from the truth. The Spanish high court has already set its course and will not change: according to the Supreme Court, the amnesty is not applicable for the crime of embezzlement and, therefore, there will be no immediate change for Carles Puigdemont, Oriol Junqueras, and the rest of those implicated in the 1-O referendum for the crime of embezzlement. "It seems clear that it does not affect it," Supreme Court sources confirmed to ARA. Those who could have their criminal records expunged are Joaquim Forn, Carme Forcadell, Josep Rull, Jordi Sánchez, Jordi Cuixart, Carles Mundó, Meritxell Borràs, and Santi Vila, convicted of sedition and/or disobedience and not embezzlement. The Supreme Court initially refused, arguing that it wanted to wait for the Constitutional Court to rule on a constitutional challenge it had filed in another case, and now sources consulted by ARA suggest that they must deliberate on it. "We'll see," they don't get involved.
The day after the TC ruling was announced, which ruled by 6 to 4 that the rule of judicial oblivion of the Process was constitutional, there was not much commotion in the Supreme Court, despite the pressure from the political sphere to make him feel challengedThe decision of the body chaired by Cándido Conde-Pumpido was "foreseeable," the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court agree, as does the response to the second chamber, now presided over on an interim basis by Andrés Martínez Arrieta. "Embezzlement," insist Supreme Court sources. "The Supreme Court's scope for prevarication is narrowing," Puigdemont denounced in a tweet on X.
Those affected assumed this Thursday that the Constitutional Court's ruling was a "step forward" and that "it will not bring any change," in the words of ERC leader Oriol Junqueras, one of those awaiting amnesty to end his disqualification until 2031. His right to political participation is at stake, as is that of the secretary general of Junts as a candidate in a hypothetical election. Therefore, he urged the Constitutional Court to apply "coercive" measures to the judges to force the amnesty, making use of the 2015 reform that allows the guarantee body to enforce its rulings.
However, sources from the Constitutional Court consulted by ARA make it clear that this is not possible. This ruling responds to a constitutional appeal filed by the People's Party (PP). It merely addresses whether the amnesty law fits into the Constitution, but does not define how the law should be applied in the cases where it could be applied. Therefore, these sources emphasize that Turull's request is out of order. A very different scenario will occur when the Constitutional Court deliberates on the appeals for protection, in which the affected parties do specifically complain that the law has not been applied to them. Then, yes: the judges will have to weigh in, and that is when the real clash between the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court will occur.
The appeals for protection
"It will have to be the Constitutional Court that decides through the appeal for protection of constitutional rights," admit Supreme Court sources, who believe it is "foreseeable" that Conde-Pumpido and the rest of the progressive bloc will consider that the Spanish high court has violated the principle of legality by finding that the misappropriation of the Proceso did not fit within the amnesty law. "We'll see what we do," they point out, for when that moment arrives. In fact, the investigating judge in the Proceso case, Pablo Llarena, already publicly stated at a conference in Granada two months ago that the appeals for protection of constitutional rights "have no recourse," considering that the Constitutional Court will have no room to discuss the Supreme Court's view of the misappropriation of constitutional rights.
Llarena stated in that talk that to prove a violation of legal certainty, the Constitutional Court should reach the conclusion that its interpretation is "extravagant," and he believes that is not the case. Now, both the Prosecutor's Office and the dissenting opinion issued by the Supreme Court's Second Chamber judge, Ana Ferrer, arguing that the leaders of the Trial should be amnestied pointed in this direction. The Public Prosecutor's Office described Llarena's decision as "artificial," and Ferrer spoke directly of "cracks in the dikes of logic." The progressive judge insisted that hers is "the only one that makes sense."
Puigdemont's Return
When Puigdemont files the appeal for protection – just when the Constitutional Court was deliberating on the amnesty, the Supreme Court has resolved the nullity incident of the Junts leader and has opened the door for him to address the guarantee body – he will be able to request as precautionary measure that forces the Supreme Court to lift the arrest warrant against the former president and, therefore, he can move freely within the Spanish state. This is an unprecedented approach, and the Constitutional Court emphasizes that "it is not predictable" what could happen. It will have to be studied when it occurs, and the circumstances at the time will be relevant. Why? Sources within the body note that it would not be the same if Puigdemont were free abroad—everywhere except Spain—or if he were imprisoned in Spain if he decided to return. "The Constitutional Court's oversight parameter is more incisive if he were deprived of his liberty," these sources say.
Those already convicted for the 1-O referendum have already filed an appeal for protection and requested that their disqualification be lifted as a precautionary measure. At the end of March, the Prosecutor's Office already objected, and, in principle, the Constitutional Court will reject it. Unlike Puigdemont's case, in that case, the right at stake would be the right to political participation, not freedom. Furthermore, granting this injunction would mean bringing forward the resolution of the merits of the case.
