The House of Representatives looks askance at the judicial position of José Luis Albalos. The former transport minister and former organizing secretary of the SWP, now an MP for the mixed group, will testify on Thursday before the Supreme Court after being charged with… … The judge ruled against him, Koldo Garcia and Victor de Aldama due to alleged irregularities in the procurement of masks during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Although Abalos, unlike his successor as third-in-command of the PSOE, Santos Cerdán, avoided temporary imprisonment, the fact that there was already an indictment against him unleashed speculation once again. The situation in which the representative will be left if he goes to prison is one of the topics of conversation in the corridors of the House of Representatives. Before the brief action against the former minister, the legal debate became complex. But with this topic on the table, it appears the unknowns have been clarified.
The second point of Article 21 of the Congressional Regulations explains that representatives will be suspended from exercising their parliamentary rights and duties “when, after granting authorization at the request of the Chamber and signing the indictment, they are in pretrial detention and for the duration thereof.” This means that if Abalos is temporarily imprisoned this Thursday, which the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office or charges may request and which a judge must approve in any case for fear of escape or destruction of evidence, he will not be able to exercise his right to vote or collect his salary as a deputy.
As parliamentary sources confirm to ABC, his seat will be suspended, but he will not lose it. In order for Abalos to permanently cease his position as a representative, he must vacate his record or be disqualified in a final ruling. It is clear that he will not be able to receive his salary or participate in the vote taking place in the House of Representatives. Before the indictment was filed, this raised doubts because the congressional indictment included two circumstances at the same time: that the indictment was “fixed” and that the representative was “in pretrial detention.”
That is why, on previous occasions, when the possibility of Abalos going to prison – without being indicted – was analyzed, the possibility of exercising his right to vote from prison seemed open. Even more so after the reform of congressional regulations approved this summer to expand the possibilities of doing so electronically. Article 82.2.g allows the House of Representatives to grant remote voting to MPs in “other exceptional cases of special gravity that justifiably impede the performance of the parliamentary function.” The wording was vague enough, according to lawyers consulted by ABC, that in this scenario it would have been approved. This is not the case because there is now already an indictment order in case he loses his liberty.
Absolute majority?
Another legal debate has begun centering around whether suspending Abalos’ seat, on the condition that he enter temporary prison—which the charges must request and a judge approve—necessitates a supermajority amendment in Congress. That is, if it is understood that the plenary session of the House of Representatives currently consists of 350 members and the absolute majority remains at 176 deputies or, on the contrary, it is reduced to 349 honorable members and the absolute majority to 175.
Sources from the Presidency of Congress indicate that the absolute majority will remain as it is now, at 176 deputies.
A few weeks ago, sources from the Congress Presidency stated that it seemed reasonable “in principle” to reduce the absolute majority to 175 deputies, given that as long as Abalos’ suspension continued, if that happened, his seat would “be lost.” But it seems that the passage of time has had an effect and that the supreme authority in the House of Representatives is now choosing to maintain the absolute majority of the 176 representatives. This is the decision adopted by Meritxell Patet in response to the suspension of the seats of Oriol Junqueras and the three other prisoners who were elected.
An absolute majority is necessary for basic laws, but the “loss” of titles to the government would, for practical purposes, have no significant effect. After the secession announced by Gantz, the Catalan separatist right added a blocking majority alongside the People’s Party and Vox, making it irrelevant whether Ábalos will vote or not. If Güntz returns to the governing equation, the former SWP third man going to prison would complicate the ballot for his former party because he would go from needing Güntz to abstain from voting to determining his positive vote.