The Popular Party and Vox defend that the amnesty law should have fallen after being rejected by the majority of the plenary session of Congress and not returning to the Justice Commission, which is why they demand that the Lower House reconsider its decision and stop processing the proposal Of law.
Yesterday, the Popular Party registered a letter addressed to the Congress Board in which it denounces that the president of the Chamber, Francina Armengol, made a “unilateral, arbitrary and contrary to law” decision and asks this body to reconsider it and declare it “decayed.” “the bill.
The PP’s letter, signed by the parliamentary spokesperson, Miguel Tellado, asks that the Board “prevent any parliamentary action or procedure (…) tending to reactivate or continue” the legislative procedure of the amnesty, due to the “irreparable and extraordinary constitutional significance” that it would cause.
The PP brief has been added to the one presented this Friday by Vox. In the text, the nullity of Armengol’s decision is demanded and therefore it is declared that the proposal was rejected and “the legislative procedure has ended.”
Now the Congress Board, where the Government and its partners have a majority, must study these writings.
On January 30, the plenary session of Congress rejected approving the amnesty law, with 179 noes, 171 yeses and no abstentions, when the seven JxCat deputies rejected the text, who had previously given their approval to the report’s opinion, which yes it went ahead.
In view of the vote, the president of Congress announced, citing article 131.2 of the Regulations, that the bill was returned to the Justice Commission so that a new opinion could be issued, since an absolute majority had not been obtained for your approval.
In their writings, Partido Popular and Vox point out that article 131.2 contemplates that when the vote on an organic law does not achieve an absolute majority “the project will be returned to the Commission”, to argue that in this case there was a majority of this type but for reject the law.
They also allude to article 79.2 of the Constitution, which states that the agreements of the Chambers to be valid “must be approved by the majority of the members present, without prejudice to the special majorities established by the Constitution or the organic laws.”
They also agree in pointing out two precedents in which the text of the opinion was returned to the commission, emphasizing that in both cases the projects were not rejected but only achieved a simple majority -more yeses than noes-, and not the absolute majority that was required. he demanded. For all these reasons, they maintain that by obtaining the entire amnesty law with more noes than yeses, the norm must decline.
