Constitutional Court Excludes Conservative Judge from Amnesty Law Appeals to Ensure Impartiality
The Constitutional Court has officially removed conservative magistrate José María Macías from all discussions regarding appeals against the amnesty law, a measure aimed at ensuring the court's impartiality. This decision comes nearly twenty appeals against the controversial law are pending before the court, following a conclusion that Macías could not fairly intervene in the case raised by the Supreme Court regarding the regulation.
In a recent plenary session, the court, with a majority from the progressive bloc and opposition from conservative judges, voted to exclude Macías from any deliberations on the unconstitutionality issue brought forth by the Supreme Court. The court expressed concerns that Macías may have already formed opinions regarding the amnesty law when he was a member of the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ), where he participated in crafting two critical reports on the legislation.
According to sources from the court, this exclusion may extend to other ongoing appeals related to the amnesty law, which have been filed by the Popular Party (PP), the Superior Court of Justice of Catalonia, and various autonomous communities. In total, nearly twenty different appeals are currently under consideration.
The conservative bloc within the court, including judges Ricardo Enríquez, Enrique Arnaldo, César Tolosa, and magistrate Concepción Espejel, has signaled intentions to submit individual votes on the matter. Following the successful objection by the Prosecutor's Office, which cited a lack of impartiality concerning Macías, the magistrate initially resisted withdrawing from other appeals. However, the recent court order compels him to abstain from all matters regarding the amnesty law appeals, citing compliance with Article 217 of the Organic Law of the Judiciary, which mandates judges to voluntarily abstain from cases in which any legally established conflicts arise.
It has been noted by consulted sources that failing to withdraw from cases despite a clear obligation to do so may lead to disciplinary repercussions for judges. Thus, the court's unanimous decision reflects a significant step toward upholding the integrity of the judiciary as it navigates the sensitive issue of the amnesty law amidst ongoing public and political scrutiny.
Related Sources: