The give and take of PSOE and PP regarding the Amnesty law continues adding chapters. In today’s case, with Congress and Senate as the playing field.
Thus, minutes before the plenary session began in the Upper House by which the popular ones will impose their majority to approve the veto of this norm – returning it to the Lower House so that the Government and its parliamentary partners can lift it and it be definitively approved, the Congressional lawyers have once again rejected, through a legal report, the Senate’s new request to annul the processing of the law.
Parliamentary sources have explained that the lawyers do not see anything legally reprehensible in the processing of the amnesty law in Congress and remember that the PP always has the possibility of going to the Constitutional Court if it so considers.
The Secretary General of Congress, Fernando Galindo, rejects, through a legal report, that it must be the plenary session of Congress that must resolve the conflict of powers between constitutional bodies raised by the Senate.
In this way, the lawyers once again defend the correct procedure of the amnesty law in Congress and reiterate the argument of their first report in which they indicated that the request was “inadmissible” and represented “interference” by the Upper House.
Given the refusal of the Congressional Board to annul the amnesty law, the Senate had approved a reconsideration document.
In a 20-page document, the Secretary General of the Senate, Sara Sieira, recalled that the Senate notification made it clear, according to its literal wording, that it was not addressed to the Congress Board, but to the Congress of Deputies and, specifically, to its president, “as she represents it.”
The Senate lawyers insisted that the plenary session of Congress was the one that should have voted on whether or not there was a conflict of powers between both Chambers.
On the other hand, the period of thirty days from the refusal of Congress to the Senate’s request to be able to go to the Constitutional Court for a conflict of powers between constitutional bodies continues to run and began with the negative response of the Board on April 16.
