The events precipitated from early in the morning in relation to the Supreme Court ruling and the process of its execution after the legal doubts that its execution and practical effects raised. The Second Chamber of the High Court took just a few hours to answer Batet on the clarification requested by the latter regarding the disqualification of the Canarian deputy of United Podemos, who was condemned by the sentence, of last day 6, of that court for kicking a policeman during a protest in La Laguna in December 2014. The head of the sentencing chamber, Manuel Marchena, sent a new official letter to Batet early in the morning in which he reiterated that the ruling is clear on this point on the disqualification of the deputy as the court already stated at the time before the clarification requested by the defendant’s defense attorney.
However, the letter still does not expressly say that said disqualification, which is not affected by the fact that the 45-day prison sentence to which Rodríguez was also sentenced was replaced by a fine of 540 euros, entails the loss of the seat, assuming that the sentence carries it implicitly. However, these doubts were what led to the lawyers of Congress will consider that his prison sentence does not have that effect because it was replaced by a fine and that his disqualification sentence prevents him from running for elections in a month and a half but not retaining the position he already holds.
After last Wednesday’s office by the Supreme Court asking Congress for the report on “the date of the beginning of the execution of the special disqualification penalty” imposed on the purple leader, a extraordinary meeting of the Bureau on Thursday It resulted in the letter of the president of the Lower House requesting “clarification on the way to duly comply with the provisions of the judgment, and, specifically, on whether to proceed, as a measure of compliance, to declare the loss of the Mr. Rodríguez’s status as a deputy ”.
Marchena’s response indicates in the first place that the law of the Judicial Power “does not include among the functions of the Supreme Court that of advising other constitutional bodies about the terms of execution of a final judgment,” that is, they only do so before a request from one of the parties. Thus, also, it was understood that the sentence sent to Congress is sufficiently clear in its terms regarding the effects of the special disqualification to which the Canarian deputy is sentenced, and which is none other than the loss of his status as deputy. From there, Marchena’s letter to Batet recalls that Rodríguez’s defense had already promoted a “request for clarification of the sentence” on understanding that it contained “manifest material errors”, demanding that the Chamber proceed to rectify it.
The error that was imputed to the Supreme Court’s decision by the defense, as explained by Marchena in his writing, would be related to the alleged forced nature of the substitution of the sentence, which would entail, in the opinion of the lawyer, “the elimination in the sentence of the references to the accessory penalty, since the substitution of the prison sentence is of a compulsory nature and does not carry the application of accessory penalties ”. But the head of the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court explains below that in the order of last day 14 to that request for clarification by the defense of the Tenerife deputy “we responded” recalling that in section 2 of the legal basis of the sentence it clearly stated that “the question is expressly resolved (…) in a way that is perfectly intelligible and that it is taken as repeated here, without any error that should be rectified.”
“The special disqualification for the exercise of the right to passive suffrage is provided in article 56.1.2 of the Penal Code, and so requires when a custodial sentence is imposed”
Today’s writing adds to Batet that “we therefore discarded any error due to the fact that maintain the validity of the special disqualification for the exercise of the right of passive suffrage of the provisions of article 56.1.2 of the Penal Code “, and that”This is required by this provision when a custodial sentence is imposed, as has happened in the present case ”. The letter insists that “the prison sentence is the punitive outcome associated with the conduct that is declared proven, without prejudice to the fact that for the purposes of its execution – and only for these exclusive purposes – its substitution by a fine has been agreed ”. That is, if there is a jail sentence, disqualification is required.
“Vote attacked “
The also former secretary of the Podemos organization, who has held a seat in Congress since the December 2015 elections, being one of the most popular leaders of the organization, assured yesterday in a comment broadcast through social networks that the “ democratic vote of tens of thousands of canaries is being attacked without any legal basis ”. “Whoever denies the importance of symbols is lying. In times like these, when the democratic vote of dozens of Canaries and Canaries is being attacked without any legal basis, they take on more value if possible, “he said on his Twitter account.
With this response from the Supreme Court, the president of Congress was forced yesterday to give an account of the judicial decisions both to Rodríguez himself, to his parliamentary group and to the Central Electoral Board (JEC), which is ultimately in charge of certifying the execution. sentence despite the fact that from the beginning of this process this electoral law monitoring body has remained on the sidelines. From here, ROdriguez will be replaced by one of the people who followed him on the electoral list that he led in the generals of 10-N of 2019 for Santa Cruz de Tenerife. If the order of that list is respected, the person who should replace him would be Fátima González Bello, who was number two on the United We can board for that province. Although the disqualification itself is formally for the 45-day period to which the conviction refers, the loss of deputy status is extended to the entire legislature.
Yesterday’s letter from the Supreme Court ends in theory with the debate on the practical effects of the disqualification of the still Canarian deputy that had been opened within the Bureau of Congress and whether or not it implied the loss of the seat. Although initially the governing body of the Chamber had allowed Rodríguez to keep the minutes based on the aforementioned legal report from the lawyers, in the urgent meeting last Thursday, Batet herself was already in favor of the disqualification effective of the deputy, although he chose to first ask the Supreme Court for clarification considering that a majority of the rest of the members of the Table, two other socialists and three from United We Can, compared to the two from the PP and the only one from Vox, had claimed it. .
The reactions have not been long in coming on social networks, questioning Batet’s decision.