The PP, before the Constitution: Home does not know the origin of error, computer or human, but was contrary to his will

The Popular Party has turned Friday in Amparo before the Constitutional Court, the decision of the President of the Congress of the Deputies, Meritxell Batet, n

The PP, before the Constitution: Home does not know the origin of error, computer or human, but was contrary to his will

The Popular Party has turned Friday in Amparo before the Constitutional Court, the decision of the President of the Congress of the Deputies, Meritxell Batet, not to allow repeating his vote to the deputy of the Popular Party, Alberto Home, considering that the right has been violated fundamental to the exercise of the representative position on equal parliamentarian conditions as well as the indirect law of citizens to political representation.

Home, due to an error, voted last week in favor of the government's labor reform allowing the government to save in extremis the validation of the reform. The PP argued from a first moment that it was due to a "computer error" that was discarded by the direction of information and communication technologies of the lower house.

However, in the demand for amparo, to which the world has had access, the formation of Pablo Married focuses its argument to point out that the home vote did not reflect the "will" of the parliamentarian. "Without prejudice that the deputy does not know the origin of the error (well computer or human but in any case, undoubtedly involuntary) the truth is that being the conviction of the deputy that of having voted not at that point, the certificate reflected instead a yes , which manifestly did not correspond to his will, "collects the writing.

In the appeal, the Popular Parliamentary Group also denounces that Congress did not televerize the vote of the popular deputy against those established in point 4 of the resolution that regulates the telematic vote.

"After exercising the vote through the telematic procedure, the Presidency or Organ in whom it will verify, by telephone the authorized deputy, before the beginning of the face-to-face vote in the full, the effective issuance of the vote and the meaning of it. Once verified These extremes, the telematic vote issued will be transferred to the presidency at the beginning of the face-to-face vote so that it can announce the accumulated result of the voting, "says the aforementioned point of the resolution issued, on May 21, 2012, for the Development of the telematic voting procedure.

The popular explains that this telephone check was not valid during the pandemic but they claim that "it would be recovered in its integrity" as of November 3, 2021. "It is more than reasonable this double caution," defends the PP, "Every time that The exercise of a sovereign state power as those attributed to the general cuts can be channeled by computer tools that opens the door to system errors or even deliberate or malicious interference. "

Likewise, in the Amparo Resource, the PP denounces that Batet prevented a new vote without convening the Table of the Congress of the Members against the provisions of point 6 of the previous resolution where it is collected that "the deputy that would have issued Its vote through the telematic procedure can not issue its face-to-face vote without express authorization from the table that, in the event that it decides to authorize the face-to-face vote will declare the null telematic vote and not issued ".

The training of marriage argues that the president of the Congress was aware that there had been an "involuntary" error that became known "prior to the vote, raising its rectification by the available means" and even so Meritxell Batet refused to Convene the table "as it was undoubtedly its obligation."

"Faced with the affirmed without attachment to the truth for the Presidency of Congress, the Bureau could not analyze when deciding on the application" of point 6 of the telematic vote "by the simple fact that the presidency, only authorized to summon the Mesa was thinly refused to carry out this call, by placing any possibility that the deputy could correct the meaning of his vote, to overcome the involuntary error, accommodate it at his will as a representative ".

In short, the PP accuses Meritxell Batet of "closing the door, one to one, at the three possibilities available to correct what is clearly unintentional error in the telematic vote of the deputy (regardless of its origin): this is , the verification of trade, the verification at the request of the deputy and the call of the table in order that it could decide on the authorization or not to exercise the face-to-face vote. "

Date Of Update: 12 February 2022, 08:13

Yorum yapabilmek için üye girişi yapmanız gerekmektedir.

Üye değilseniz hemen üye olun veya giriş yapın.

NEXT NEWS