Parliamentary privilege, acceptance of a Popular Legislative Initiative (ilp) by the Parliamentary Bureau and oversight by the Constitutional Court.

Abstract

The commentary on STC 143/2024 highlights the problems caused by the lack of implementation of a legal category: parliamentary privilege. The Ruling’s interpretation of the term ‘resolutions’ (Articles 76 and 77 Constitutional Court Organic Act, LOTC) overlooks a preliminary question, which is the absence of jurisdiction on the ordinary activity and functioning of parliamentary chambers. The recognition of the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court (CC) over parliamentary activity in the case of enforcing rulings has no grounds in statutory law. No legislation empowers the CC in this regard. It is an order of the Constitutional Court itself that provides that possibility, an order self-referenced by the CC itself in a ruling, but which it is impossible to find on its official page. A new legal procedure now has to be added for parliamentary oversight, which is the one envisaged in Title V of the LOTC. A new procedure to control the functioning of the parliamentary chambers has thus emerged, which is contrary to the principle of their parliamentary privilege and which limits the scope of the democratic principle. That is clearly expressed by the Individual Opinion of Judge Ramón Sáez Valcárcel.