Álvarez de Toledo resorts the sanction of 500 euros imposed by the PP considering it unconstitutional

The former spokesman of the PP in Congress Cayetana Álvarez de Toledo has resorted by unconstitutional the sanction of 500 euros that on 30 December imposed his

Álvarez de Toledo resorts the sanction of 500 euros imposed by the PP considering it unconstitutional

The former spokesman of the PP in Congress Cayetana Álvarez de Toledo has resorted by unconstitutional the sanction of 500 euros that on 30 December imposed his party for not having supported the election of candidates that the popular pose with the PSOE and united we can To renew the Constitutional Court, thus unchecking the party guidelines.

In its resource, presented on the same day of kings and collected by Europe Press, Álvarez de Toledo emphasizes that the fine infringes two articles of the Constitution: on the one hand, 67.2, which states that "the members of the general cuts will not be linked By imperative mandate "and, on the other, 79.3," that ratifies it when it warns that the vote of deputies and senators is personal and indelectable. "

"The Jibarization of the Deputy, the suppression of his freedom and his total submission to the partisan discipline is constitutionally inadmissible and deleterea for parliamentary health because it ends up reducing representative democracy, which the Constitution itself covers and organizes, to a set of grimaces" , he says.

And that is what it argues that the PP Council has taken care of: "That the deputies are subject to imperative mandate always and in all circumstance, including secret votes, that we have no criterion or margin of autonomy or freedom And that we are only to express with voice or gesture -apretting a green, red or yellow button- the slogans of the direction of the party ". "What are we," says an army of clones without conscience, at the service of increasingly cesareist domes. "

In his writing, he insists that the Statutes of the Parliamentary Group "do not fit" to the Universal Rule that "no one can be convicted without a law that publicly typifies its behavior as punishable" because "never" have been published from None of the multiple ways that ensure knowledge of a legal norm, not even by specific recipients, this is the deputies of the PP.

"The Statutes are veiled by secrecy, they are not freely access and nobody has facilitated the deputies an authenticated copy," says Álvarez de Toledo to denounce that he has been "imputed and threatened with sanction" by virtue of a rule that in The time to adopt was "secret".

"The circumstance that the Statutes have not received advertising sufficient to sustain the conclusion that they lack, in rigor, of legal requirement and, of course, of coercive force -arguy-. Therefore, everything acted in this case - from The agreement of initiation of the file until the sanctioning resolution - is radically null ".

He adds, furthermore, that the Statutes suffer from "vices" that, in his opinion, prevent them from considering them as a legally valid norm because, of entry, infringe the principle of "Equality of Arms" regarding the terms to act by the instructor and the Expedited, what he supposes, as aims, "a violation of article 24 of the Constitution". This article talks about the right to obtain the effective tutelage of judges and courts in the exercise of their legitimate rights and interests, without, in any case, there may be defenselessness. "

In its specific case, it complains that "the disproportion is even greater" because it received notification of the resolution full Christmas holidays (December 30 at 22.30). "Lack of touch or willingness to provoke defenselessness?" He arises.

The 'number one' of the PP by Barcelona also cites as another "vice of unconstitutionality" of the PP statutes that the principle of proportionality is not respected, because there is no difference, it indicates, between the sanction corresponding to the serious faults -with The one that she has been sanctioned - and the very serious, while in both assumptions the fine is 500 to 700 euros. "Unexplicable," he says.

And it also questions that not voting in full an initiative of the PP is sanctioned with a fine of 300 euros and, on the other hand, not to respect group discipline in voting in full is punished with between 500 and 700 euros, "even when This action is translated, as in this case, in a blank vote whose practical effects are identical to those of omission. "

In his appeal, Álvarez de Toledo again denounces that the position of the PP before "important" voting, such as the election of magistrates to the CT, was not defined at a pre-meeting as deputies, as the Bylaws. "The reality is that there was only an order and command," it summarizes, to insist that "in these conditions no deputy can be sanctioned."

In his text, former spokesman 'popular' insists, as he already did in his writing of allegations, which issued his blank vote on the election of the TC magistrates "in strict ideological coherence" with the basic principles and lines of the electoral program With which the PP was presented to the elections of April 2019 and with the "political line" marked by the current party leaders. That program, according to her, she recalls, the depolitization of justice and the strengthening of institutions.

"Blank vote is a decision that claims and that it can not be the subject of sanction without falling into serious internal and external contradictions - significant-- sanctioning would involve violating the Constitution and legal procedures, breach the Group's current Statutes, undermine the Autonomy of the deputy, frustrate democratic regeneration and challenge the Ideario of the PP ".

And it adds that "nothing, a fine" may convince her that there is a contradiction between the defense of the depolitization of justice - and the blank vote to an agreement that, in his opinion, "politicizes" the Constitutional Court.

Therefore, the former Parliamentary spokesman for PP pray that its appeal contrary to the resolution adopted on December 30 so that it is without effect the fine appealed for being "contrary to law".

Updated Date: 07 January 2022, 08:20

You need to login to comment.

Please register or login.