The processing of the Amnesty law was reactivated this Tuesday in the Lower House. The Congress Board has decided to give the justice commission until January 21 to approve a new opinion that, in turn, must be voted on in plenary.
The majority of the PSOE and Sumar in the governing body of the Chamber has applied the criteria established by the institution’s lawyers in a report that was not binding. All this with the vote against the PP, which maintained together with Vox that the bill had declined on January 30.
The legislative initiative, specifically, was submitted to two overall votes: one on the opinion, in which a simple majority was sufficient and an absolute majority was achieved in favor; and a second given its organic rank, where an absolute majority was required in favor and which garnered an absolute majority against.
The PP and Vox defend that the text declined because in the organic vote it was rejected by 179 votes, three above the absolute majority. However, the Board has ratified the decision announced then by the president of the Chamber, Francina Armengol, and has sent the bill back to the Justice Commission for a second chance.
The two-week period, based on the lawyers’ proposal, will be counted in calendar days starting this Wednesday. The Regulation establishes a period of one month when an initiative of an organic nature has to be returned to the commission from which it came when an absolute majority was not achieved in the overall vote. But since this bill is processed through the urgent procedure, the deadlines are reduced by half.
The commission will have to work, therefore, on the opinion of the bill that was approved in last week’s plenary session. As well as in the amendments that remained alive. That is, new amendments cannot be registered, but those rejected on the 30th can be used to search for transactional issues.
Although the horizon set by the Congress Board is for the new opinion to be ready no later than February 21, the justice commission could request an extension if it considers that more time is required to rule. In any case, article 131.2 does not allow going beyond a maximum of one month.
