The General Council of the Judiciary will presumably approve this Thursday its opinion on the draft law ‘for the right to housing’. This text is especially defended by the communist sector of the Government, although it is formally presented by a ministry assigned to the PSOE -the Ministry of Transport, Mobility and Urban Agenda-, which constitutes a new example of the internal dislocation of the Executive. The CGPJ rejected by a large majority the favorable report that one of its members and former socialist deputy, Álvaro Cuesta, had presented to the plenary. Now, the draft that will be voted on the day after tomorrow is an amendment to the entire draft. The reaction of United We Can has been, once again, insane. Minister Ione Belarra has accused the CGPJ of leading an “anti-democratic reaction” and of exceeding its functions.
Brussels should take note of this renewed display of intolerance by the Government towards the Judiciary, because it is no stranger to its will to subdue it with the mutilation of its powers and with its partisan renewal. Belarra’s statements are the eruption of an irrefutable legal report, against which the Government has two options: either maintain the populist fandom of its communist ministers or behave as an Executive receptive to the constitutional requirements for the exercise of its powers. The main argument of the CGPJ report is that the draft bill incurs in a “clear leadership of the actions of the regional and local institutions”, that is, in an invasion of regional powers, which was known from the very moment that the Government announced his willingness to promote this law. It is striking that a left that is so sensitive to differential facts, so supportive of the right to self-determination, so federalist, reacts with Jacobin and centralist shouting. The communist ministers of United We Can should read the report and then opt for a civilized speech. The document only recalls what the autonomous organization of the State consists of and the competences of the autonomous communities on housing.
The report also reproaches the bill for seeking to convert the right to decent housing into a fundamental right enforceable before the courts, when the Constitution includes it in the section on the guiding principles of an economic and social nature. The nuance is important, because it denounces an attempt to change the Constitution by the impertinent route of an ordinary law. Nor is the report far behind when it underlines the interference of the draft bill in private relations and in the right to property, with regulations that put it at unjustified risk. As the report recalls, the CGPJ exercises its advisory function without depending “neither on the interest nor on the will” of the Government that requests its report. The critical point has been reached in the relationship between State powers in which one of them, the judiciary, has to remind the executive of its independent jurisdiction. For this reason, the reaction of United We Can and the silence of the Government transcend the meaning of the draft, whose technical quality is minimal. The coalition of socialists and communists has jumped against the CGPJ because it reveals the contempt for the constitutional rules that animates its interventionist project. It is evident that the Constitution and the bodies in charge of ensuring it are obstacles in the ideology of United We Can. If it did not have ministers in the Government, it would be one more formation of those that hover around political marginalization, but it does have them because the PSOE wants to maintain power at any cost. Even at the expense of the Constitution itself.