Cristina Dexeus is
president of the Association of Prosecutors, a former member of the
Fiscal Council of the State Attorney General's Office and fiscal
coordinator of the Territorial Section of Sant Feliu de Llobregat,
Barcelona.
Carlos Bautista, also a member of the
Association of Prosecutors, is assigned to the Office of the Public
Prosecutor of the National Court in Madrid.
In spite of the fact that the Kingdom of Spain enjoys a full
democratic system, it is puzzling to note how certain detractors make
statements which do not correspond at all to reality, with the sole
intent of criticising our democracy.
Spanish citizens who were
born in the 1960s - teenagers during the constituent transition period -
do not share these kinds of unacceptable assertions. Perhaps younger
generations, those who did not experience the last moments of the
dictatorship - may better understand such statements.
However,
it is worth remembering that our democracy took root in those times.
That historical moment can be summarised with a single word: hope.
Despite the adversities, there was a collective hope that guided the
Spanish nation towards something new, that we all ventured would be
better and different: a democratic system. This was crystalised in the
1978 Spanish Constitution.
We can therefore proclaim that we are
living in a young but modern democracy. One of the first things that we
learned at Law School, when studying political law, was the classic
definition of a democracy. According to Article XVI of the Declaration
of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, “a society in which the
guarantee of rights is not assured, nor the separation of powers
determined, has no Constitution.”
This definition
assigns substantial importance to ‘a constitution’ - which is different
from a formalistic concept - which features authoritarian regimes,
disguising them under some institutional and rhetorical wording so they
appear as a real democratic regime. However, this is over, as we are no
longer live under the principios fundamentales del movimiento (the fundamental laws of Franco’s dictatorship).
The
Spanish Constitution of 1978 enshrines a real democracy, embodying the
classic distinction between legislative, executive and judicial powers.
However, it should be noted that the only one that has been defined
using the term ‘power’ is the judiciary, which appears at the heading of
Title VI of the Constitution. This is based on a strong conception of
the judicial independence which, as a constituted power, is at the same
level of legitimacy as the government or the Parliament, the Cortes Generales, emanating from the people and strictly summited to the law.
Neither
the government - central or regional - is above the law, nor the
Parliament - any Parliament, central or autonomous - is sovereign. When
the government does not respect the law, when it breaks the rules that
make citizens free and equal, then the power of the strongest people
against the weakest citizens surfaces again and our fundamental rights
are in danger. When Parliament proclaims its sovereignty, a serious and
dangerous political error is made. They are not sovereigns, as no
constituted power is in the Kelsenian conception of modern
constitutionalism.
The sovereign is the constituent power, and
expresses its creative force and potential in the Constitution, which is
the embodiment of the sovereignty of the Spanish people. Parliament, as
a subordinate power, cannot do everything. In this aspect, we differ
from the English parliamentary conception of the nineteenth century.
Therefore, parliamentary legitimacy is not above the legitimacy of the
judiciary.
The constitutional legitimacy of the judiciary emanates
from the submission to the law, which is the expression of the will of
the nation. The legitimacy in exercising such a power does not remain on
the election of its members in periodic elections, but, directly on the
Constitution. And so, it is decided by the constituent power. The
submission to the law, and the correct exercise of jurisdiction can only
be guaranteed through independent and irremovable judges. And this is
regardless of the means of promotion to judicial posts. When one
criticises the way in which the Supreme Court justices are appointed in
Spain, one forgets that other well-established democracies, such the
United States of America where the appointment of Supreme Court justices
remains in the hands of two powers: the President of the United States
and the Senate.
And whatever their
ideological status, unlimited tenure accentuates their independence,
which they exercise autonomously from those who proposed or appointed
them. A similar conclusion can be reached as regards to the Spanish
Supreme Court. Nobody can seriously state that a magistrate in Spain’s
highest court, irremovable until the age of retirement, remains at the
mercy of other interests other than justice. The sad experience of
certain countries, which opted for a system in which Supreme Court
judges are elected and periodically dismissed by the Parliament, led to a
dramatic reality in which the judiciary serves spurious interests. We
need to avoid such a model at all costs.
The same conclusion applies as regards our Ministerio Fiscal
(Public Prosecutor’s Office). As an institution, it is independent
without anyone being able to give it orders, even though, in informal
circles, this may be the opinion of people with no legal education. It
neither depends on the executive nor is it framed within it, unlike in
the United States, Germany or the United Kingdom which are undoubtedly
consolidated democracies.
Such a warped conclusion ignores the
nature of the institution and its components, instead believing that an
illegal action could be carried out (such as not accusing who should be
accused or accusing those who should not be accused) only because it
suits the interests of the government in power. In this respect, we
should remember the action of the US Attorney General in the Watergate
case. The special prosecutor appointed for the case, Archibald Cox on 19
October 1973 refused a request from the President of the United States,
Richard Nixon. Then, the latter, enraged, asked his Attorney General
and Minister of Justice to stop Cox. Since the Attorney General resigned
before fulfilling an illegal order, Nixon asked his deputy, William
Ruckelhaus, who also resigned.
Some minutes later, during the
night, Nixon contacted the acting Attorney General, Robert Bork, who
reluctantly accepted the request. That night became infamous as the
“Saturday Night Massacre,” an event which shocked the Senate and turned
public opinion, precipitating the president’s accusation on 27 July
1974. If this happened in a system in which there is no civil service,
as on the European continent, nobody can doubt that this chain of
refusals without any fissure would also occur here, being the case that
members of the Public Prosecutor’s Office cannot be dismissed, as they
enjoy civil service status. It needs to be stressed that this status is a
clear and strong guarantee of independence.
As regards
fundamental rights and guarantees in our criminal proceedings, we should
state that in the last thirty years we have reached the level of any
advanced democracy, along with the failures that are unavoidable in any
human organization. If we look back to the early days of democracy, we
could say to young judges and prosecutors: “We have seen things that you
wouldn’t even imagine.” The dialogue between courts - Supreme,
Constitutional and European of Human Rights - has led to a solid body of
procedural guarantees that are fully applicable before our courts.
Consequently,
as prosecutors committed to the rule of law, we must affirm that in
Spain what is enshrined in Article 1 of the Spanish Constitution is
reflected in the reality: Spain is a social and democratic state
governed by the rule of law. Everyone, without exception, before any
court, will enjoy a fair trial. And, before those who - inside and
outside our country - try to promote a fake vision of our democracy, we
must raise our voices and proclaim that we have never enjoyed, in our
constitutional procedural history, the level of guarantees as those that
protect defendants, present and future.
https://www.euronews.com/2019/02/12/spanish-democracy-guarantees-catalan-independence-leaders-will-get-a-fair-trial-view
0 comentarios:
Post a Comment