The Current Situation of the Supreme Court
August 24 marked a new chapter in the Spanish political controversy, with the Supreme Court (TS) reaffirming its stance against amnesty for pro-independence leaders. Meanwhile, Carles Puigdemont, a key opposition figure, has made his return to Spanish soil, attempting to gain access to the Parliament to participate in the discussion on Article 155, only to encounter strong police resistance.
An Analysis of the Power of the TS
It is essential to question not only the decisions of the Supreme Court, but also the conditions that have allowed it to act. What elements have led this court to challenge the law with such ease? The question becomes more intriguing when observing how the Supreme Court has dismissed the law, using arguments that seem more appropriate for a Constitutional Court. The premise that the ‘misappropriation of the process’ qualifies for amnesty is a clear example of this dynamic.
The Autonomy of the Court
The question that arises is: how does the Supreme Court act without fear of repercussions? If a lawsuit were filed against its decisions, the Supreme Court itself would be in charge of deciding whether or not to proceed. This situation creates a vicious circle where accountability seems to be absent.
Judicial Corporatism
In the judicial field, there is a tendency to avoid peer review. This phenomenon could be interpreted as corporatism, where judges are reluctant to condemn other judges. Accusations of malfeasance, for example, are often dismissed without in-depth investigation, arguing that these are merely interpretative issues.
Exceptions to the Rule
However, there are cases such as those of the courts that have handled the Tsunami and Volhov cases, where decisions have been made that could be considered similar to those of the SC. These judges, being close to retirement, seem to have less to lose and therefore dare to challenge the status quo.
Proposals for Change
A possible solution to this climate of immunity in which the Supreme Court finds itself would be to implement reforms that allow complaints against this court to be reviewed by a special chamber, composed of judges randomly selected from the entire judicial career. This would eliminate the certainty that their immediate colleagues would be deciding on their conduct.
The Value of Uncertainty
Uncertainty about who would judge a potential complaint could encourage judges to reflect more deeply on the implications of their decisions. The possibility of being judged by colleagues from different backgrounds could be a deterrent to taking risky decisions.
In the end, judicial reform is not just about changing laws, but about fostering an environment where responsibility and ethics are fundamental values in judicial practice.