Posted: Wednesday January 13 2021 11:26 AM
The Congressional Office refused to go ahead with the Commission of Inquiry into the King Emeritus over its use of “black” cards by a Mexican businessman, after lawyers in Congress first approved once a request for these characteristics.
United We Can and six other parties called on Congress to investigate these irregularities of Juan Carlos I and, after five denials by lawyers, the sixth time came the loser: lawyers considered the commissions unconstitutional because the courts did not do not have among their functions the control at the royal house. However, this sixth registrant focuses on the use of the cards and not the emeritus, despite being one of the beneficiaries.
PSOE, PP and Vox have asserted their majority in the Table to overthrow this commission. The PSOE had so far argued that it follows the lawyers’ criteria, but now it has not been marked, ensuring that it is not the role of Congress to oversee the Royal Household.
United We Can spokesman in Congress, Pablo Echenique, responded to the news via Twitter and ensured that the Table’s decision lacked legal argument and that the initiative was fully constitutional.
On the other hand, sources of the PP assure that the PSOE “cannot be en masse and ring”, because although it votes against the commission to the king, “it does not resist Iglesias”, who, in the opinion of the popular, He constantly attacks the Crown.
Investigate after abdication
Unidos Podemos, ERC, EH-Bildu, Más País, Compromís, CUP and BNG registered in mid-December a new commission of inquiry in Congress into the “ black ” cards of the King Emeritus, limiting its scope to everything that s he subsequently abdicated, after lawyers overturned a similar commission for the fifth time.
The groups thus hoped to circumvent the inviolability of Juan Carlos I, by setting the limit to acts that occurred when he was no longer king and which were only measured by the Supreme Court.
As noted in the registered letter to Congress, the prosecutor’s office is already seeing evidence of a crime and alluding to Article 76 of the Constitution and the Rules of the Lower House which establish that “commissions of inquiry may be established to matters of public interest ”.
In addition, the authors recalled other cases in which commissions of inquiry into personal matters of public office have been approved and referred to constitutional decisions in which it is said that inviolability must be interpreted in an evolutionary manner, taking into account each time and place “.