It considers that the doctrine of the High Court was violated when using expressions on the "Catalan Republic", "political prisoners" or the "mandate of October 1"

The Popular Party today filed an appeal for protection against the Constitutional Court against the decision of the president of the Congress, Meritxell Batet (and after the Mesa by majority of the PSOE and Podemos) to validate the formulas of adherence to the Magna Carta used by different sovereign deputies, during the constitutive session of the Congress, on May 21.

The basis of the appeal is based on the overflow by many sovereign deputies of the requirement of oath or promise of compliance with the Constitution provided for in various rules, violating the very doctrine of the High Court, which has only expressly endorsed the use of the formula "By legal imperative" and that warns that others fail to meet the established requirements if they are accompanied by "clauses or expressions that in one way or another empty, limit or condition their own meaning, whatever the justification invoked for it."

The appeal of the deputies, led by the spokesman and the general secretary of the Popular Parliamentary Group, José Antonio Bermúdez de Castro and Isabel Borrego, stresses that, in this sense, the formulas used by some of the ERC and JuntsperCat deputies are particularly expressive. they allude to the "Catalan Republic", to "political prisoners" and to the "mandate of October 1", insofar as they are doubtfully compatible with the Spanish Constitution itself, which is said to abide by and in the same act is rejected.

It is also significant, according to the official verbatim records, that several parliamentarians said their compliance was from loyalty to the mandate of October 1, which was an illegal referendum, which clashes with the constitutional order.

In short, it is considered that all deputies have the obligation to comply correctly with the Constitution to acquire the full status of deputy, while some used formulas that clearly emptied said compliance, which circumstance must have been appreciated by the Presidency of Congress.

In the opinion of the PP, the compliance is an act loaded with symbolism because it means that, faced with the general duty of all Spaniards to submit to the law as the basic rule of democracy, elected officials have a plus, a special duty of submit to the law and comply with it.

But the aforementioned deputies, in the constitutive session of the Congress, used the act of promise or oath to the Constitution to utter expressions or launch proclamations in favor of the secessionist challenge and against national sovereignty, and to attack the Monarchy and the Judicial Power, in a clear attempt to condition or limit the act of submission to the law to empty it of content.

For the PP, that goes against the law and the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court that tells us that submission to the law must be full and unconditional, must be clear and unambiguous, something that in the opinion of the signatories of the writ of amparo not It occurred in some cases.

The PP filed the appeal because "it can not ignore and will not allow disrespect to national sovereignty and institutions, because an act that aims to submit to law can not go down in history as a act of contempt to it. "

Source of new