“We don’t have the last word because we are right. We are right because we have the last word,” a U.S. Supreme Court justice ironically explained. With that same implicit reasoning, six judges of the Spanish Constitutional Court (TC), directly appointed by the government, have declared—against the staunch opposition of the four magistrates appointed by the opposition—that the amnesty negotiated by Pedro Sánchez with the “procés” fugitives from Catalonia to secure his investiture (impunity in exchange for power) is constitutional.
Magistrates who had previously and publicly expressed opinions against its constitutionality—like Sánchez’s former Minister of Justice, Juan Carlos Campo—either abstained from voting or were removed by the court president, as was the case with Justice Macías. Thus, with the majority of government-appointed magistrates secured, the constitutionality of the amnesty was validated by a 6-to-4 vote. The argument used was that anything not expressly or implicitly prohibited by the Constitution is constitutional, regardless of whether it is just or unjust, moral or immoral, reasonable or illogical, or whether it violates the separation of powers.
The government-aligned majority of the TC considers this law justified, not arbitrary, and that it does not violate equality or the separation of powers. This is precisely the opposite of what the four dissenting magistrates believe. (And half of Spain, too, as even eminent socialist leaders—like former Prime Minister and PSOE leader, Felipe González—have announced they will stop voting for the PSOE for supporting such an “outrage.” As the socialist president of Castilla La Mancha, Emiliano García Page, explained, the Amnesty Law may have served to overcome the division caused by the “procés” coup plotters in Catalonia, but it has done so “at the cost of dividing Spain.”)
Now, only the European Court of Justice can curb this “self-amnesty”—as the European Commission’s report sent to the high European court has called it.
The amnesty ruling is not the first “shameful” judgment by the Spanish high court in its half-century history. During this period, there have been constitutional rulings that have caused embarrassment within the legal community and among the Spanish people. The most significant include the declaration of constitutionality of the expropriation of Rumasa—an ad hominem law that allowed expropriation without fair compensation—and the declaration of constitutionality of the Gender Violence Law, which overturns the presumption of innocence for men based solely on a woman’s statement.
