Emphasizing one formula or another, rarely is there so much agreement when consulting judges, professors and lawyers on a matter as in the need for specific legislation to fight pandemics, based on experience lived in this year and a half of covid.
In his opinion, this would avoid the apparently contradictory criteria followed by the autonomous communities and their respective superior courts of justice not to mention the setback that the government has seen the declaration of unconstitutionality of the confinement decreed during the first state of alarm, for having used this formula, which is insufficient in the opinion of the Constitutional Court for a similar limitation of fundamental freedoms.
In the sector that expresses itself more exhaustively are the representatives of the judges’ associations The spokesperson for the conservative Professional Association, María Jesús del Barco is so in favor of a new legislation that she refers to the President of the Government world11891 himself.
Pedro Sanchez who came to agree with Citizens to promulgate a law that would unify anti-pandemic measures between the different autonomous communities for this party to vote in favor of the sixth and last extension of the first state of alarm.
Del Barco considers that there has been no political intention on the part of the Executive, because since the pandemic began, the child protection law has been made and the organic law of the judiciary has been modified to remove powers from the General Council of the Judiciary.
It points out that both are organic laws, so that for their enactment it was also necessary to count on the majority of Parliament, to then insist that the only thing that has been addressed are procedural aspects.
First so that the appeals against decisions of the central government were resolved by the National Court and then those of the higher courts, by the Supreme Court. “It has been said that the territorial health council had legal powers, when it can only make recommendations,”.
Recalls the judicial spokesperson, very critical of both the Sánchez Executive and the opposition, because she does not forget that, despite what Now he says, in his day he supported the state of alarm.
Jorge Vaquero from Francisco de Vitoria, highlights that his association has been “for more than a year saying that the legislation does not allow an adequate response to the pandemic.” “It is something new that nobody foresaw and we do not have legal instruments.
The specific health legislation does not serve for gravity peaks and the state of alarm and exception is too burdensome,” he insists to demand new legislation “to specify who can adopt measures (government central or autonomous, the Parliaments), what measures and if with prior or subsequent authorization from the courts “.
Considers its recommendation essential to end the disparity of judicial criteria that have occurred, because the Supreme Court resolves “based on the intensity with which they justify” the need for the measures adopted by the communities.