The Superior Court of Justice of the Canary Islands (TSJC) has recently determined that the Santa Cruz City Council “has infringed the fundamental right to political participation” of the socialist councillors Patricia Hernández and Matilde Zambudio. The TSJC accepted the appeal lodged by both councillors, overturning the decision made by the Administrative Litigation Court number 3, which had dismissed their lawsuit against the local government (CC-PP) for refusing to respond verbally to questions raised during the plenary session on 24 November 2023.
According to the TSJC ruling, during the Meeting of Spokespersons held four days prior to the plenary session, Patricia Hernández had requested that all queries submitted by her group be addressed verbally. Reports indicate that the spokespersons from the municipal groups of CC and PP, part of the local administration, “responded that the format of responses to the questions posed by opposition councillors was a decision of the governing body of the capital.” In light of this, the socialist councillor “indicated that a decision was being taken that contradicted the law, infringing upon her fundamental right to political participation and oversight.”
When the plenary session commenced, the ruling notes that within the inspection and control segment, it was highlighted that the appellants were unable to ask questions verbally or receive verbal replies to three queries, despite having explicitly requested this. Furthermore, concerning the section of requests and questions, the appellants did not receive either verbal or written responses to their queries, nor were they given any explanation for the lack of answers, not even in the subsequent two plenary sessions.
Following this elucidation, the TSJC contends that the law governing municipalities in the Canary Islands “allows for organic regulations to stipulate the number of requests and questions that may be submitted at each plenary session, which refers to a numerical limit; however, this enabling title does not grant councillors or the mayor the authority to determine whether to acknowledge the request for a verbal response. Such a stance cannot be justified by any credible legal interpretation.” “To act in this manner signifies that it is power which suppresses the opposition rather than vice versa, a situation that is untenable in a social and democratic State governed by the rule of law,” it asserts.
Consequently, “we must conclude that the fundamental right to political participation of the two appellant councillors was indeed breached,” the TSJC concludes in its ruling, which also annuls points 20, 27, and 28 from the agenda of the plenary session of 24 November 2023, alongside the section concerning requests and questions. Additionally, the defendant administration is held liable for the costs incurred during the first instance.
Patricia Hernández expressed her contentment with the ruling, stating: “It is clear that our constitutional rights were violated, as were those of the constituents we represent, who are entitled to know the answers in plenary, rather than in writing.” The socialist councillor asserted that “this underscores that the governing team is reluctant to confront issues directly and resorts to subterfuge to silence our voices and evade answering. Furthermore, it illustrates that institutions are functioning as they should, and when we seek protection, justice is provided.”
She further remarked that “we shall persist in our duties, we will demand that they respond to the verbal questions we consider necessary, and they will be obliged to answer verbally.” “It is disgraceful that for the third time in this term, they have been found to have infringed José Manuel Bermúdez’s (CC) constitutional rights of the opposition,” she commented.
