The former president of Adelante Andalucía, Teresa Rodríguez, and the other eight deputies expelled from her group under the accusation of “transfuguismo” have submitted an appeal to the Parliamentary Board to “reconsider” the consideration and admission for processing of the proposal for express reform of the regulation that endorses the expulsion of her group and her status as a non-attached deputy. The main argument is that this modification of the internal regulations of the Parliament violates several precepts of the Spanish Constitution.
The Andalusian Parliament expels Teresa Rodríguez from her group with the votes of PSOE, Ciudadanos and Vox
The appeal for “reconsideration”, to which this newspaper has had access, denounces that the aforementioned reform of the regulations of the Andalusian legislative chamber is, in reality, a “disguised constitutional reform”, which leaves unassisted and violates the fundamental rights of the eight non-attached deputies directly affected by the bill. The initiative, which incorporates into the internal regulations of the Parliament the provisions of the National Anti-Transfuguism Pact, has already begun its processing through the emergency route, in accordance with what was approved by the Table last week with the votes of all groups, except Vox .
“The reform of the regulation, in its Sole Article Section Two. 2 and Section Four, supposes a disguised constitutional reform of article 67.2 of the Spanish Constitution and 101.1 of the Statute of Autonomy, which prevent deputies from being subject to any imperative mandate, without follow the established review procedure, and this also implies a violation of article 23 of the Constitution “, reads the appeal. Teresa Rodríguez and the other eight deputies have already denounced the Andalusian Parliament before the Constitutional Court, considering that their expulsion violates their fundamental rights of political representation.
The proposed law modifies articles 21, 24 and 26 of the current regulation, relative to the composition and internal functioning of the parliamentary groups, and adds a more detailed definition of the condition of non-attached deputy for “case of transfuguismo”, case Rodriguez’s current position, based on the “separation of the political criteria of the deputy who concurred for the candidacy of which the parliamentary group brings cause”. This last phrase, which comes directly from the text of the Anti-Transfugism Pact, has aroused many misgivings and “legal doubts”, which Vox clings to in order not to support the draft.
On this point, the appeal filed by Rodríguez to stop the processing of the reform warns that it also “violates article 71 of the Constitution, which determines the inviolability of the deputies by the opinions expressed in the exercise of their functions in relation to article 67.2, giving letter of nature to the possibility that a private organization such as a political party, if it considers a deputy not submissive to the dominant political current, with a simple letter alters the ius in officium of those elected who are not docile. “This aspect is the most damaging for Rodríguez and the rest of the affected deputies, who add in the appeal that the legislative Chamber complies with the internal guidelines of the political parties, by adjusting its internal regulations to those of said organizations: “The reform gives the possibility of intervention of a private entity, such as the representative of a party, in the parliamentary organization, by giving it a letter of nature to be able to constitute a parliamentary group, which is contrary to article 23 of the Constitution, which grants the right to political participation to citizens and their representatives and not to political parties. ”
The basic argument of the appeal is that, when admitting the express reform, the governing body of Parliament has given priority to the “purely prodecimiental” order of the regulation over the “constitutional order”. “The Board may deny the admission for processing of a motion for reasons other than purely procedural ones, based on the aforementioned mandate of article 9.1 of the Constitution”, that is: “citizens and public powers are subject to the Constitution and to the rest of the legal system “.
And then he denounces a certain “political opportunism” both in the “strange” content of the reform and in the processing through the emergency route: “Although the intervention of the Table cannot prejudge the success or political opportunity, when the content is unequivocally foreign to the purposes established for the initiative in the regulation or manifestly contrary to law or unconstitutional, the inadmissibility must be agreed.