"There are times when the popular accuser is a Trojan horse that enters the process with its belly full of illegitimate interests." This phrase, pronounced by Judge Javier Gómez de Liaño, is cited in a writing from the Public Prosecutor's Office to reflect the "distrust" generated by a "late" attempt to appear in the Unión case. In that writing, prosecutor Javier Ródenas is once again opposed to an association of jurists from Gran Canaria, newly created and still not properly identified, appearing as a popular accusation in one of the parts of the case.
For months, the Association for the Defense of Legality and Guarantees of the Jiménez de Asúa Process has been trying to intervene as a popular accusation in different parts of Unión, despite the fact that they are already closed and ready to go to trial. Now, it has once again filed a new appeal with the Provincial Court, after Judge Silvia Muñoz rejected its appearance for the second time, specifically in part number 12 (which is one of the main ones and has 14 defendants for bribery and embezzlement of public funds in the Arrecife City Council).
In his writing responding to that appeal, the Prosecutor's Office supports the criteria of the investigating judge and asks that this appearance be rejected for being "extemporaneous" and because it would also cause "undue delays" in the procedure. And this association, which was not even formally registered when it requested its appearance, has also requested that the order to open the oral trial be annulled (which was already issued last July). It even intends to transfer the entire case, which has "58 volumes plus documentary annexes plus pieces of conviction" to the Court, only so that it can resolve the appeal on whether or not its appearance is appropriate. "If it is not an abuse in the exercise of popular action, it looks like it," the Prosecutor's Office affirms, which considers that it cannot be expected that this association "studies a case that it was never interested in" and that it "does not even know, according to its own words."
"It is wanting to paralyze sine die" the case
"Pretending to wait to correct serious defects of appearance in the case that was already closed in its instruction and with the qualifications presented and wanting to withdraw the order to open the oral trial is wanting the instructor to paralyze the procedural processing sine die," argues prosecutor Javier Ródenas.
In addition, he adds that beyond the "purposes" invoked by the association, which are generic and indeterminate according to the judge, what "reveals the true nature" of what is intended "are the procedural acts, manner, time, form of exercising them." And in this case, the steps taken so far by this association only lead to delaying a procedure that is ready to go to trial.
"How is it possible that a criminal procedure that has enjoyed enormous media coverage (the "Unión" case) only encourages this association to exercise popular action when the instruction phase has concluded?", asks the Public Prosecutor's Office, which emphasizes that it is precisely in the instruction "where it is most necessary to project the interests that the newly created association claims to champion", which has had a "late awakening".
From "total passivity" to "hurrying"
In addition, he emphasizes that the "total passivity" and the "procedural silence" that it has had throughout the instruction, since the case broke out in 2009, "clashes" now with "the hurrying in the constitution of the association." In fact, the Prosecutor's Office considers that only "as a result of the rush" can the "serious formal defects in the constitution of the association" and the "numerous requests for correction" that the investigating judge has had to make to this association be explained, "in issues as basic as writings without a lawyer's signature."
The first time this association requested to appear, it did not provide "any document", according to the judge, and only presented a writing in which it dedicated "five lines" to substantiate the reasons that led it to want to exercise the popular accusation. That same day, last July 16, Silvia Muñoz issued a provision requiring "documents that prove legitimate interest, identity of the association, procedural postulation and accusatory claim exercised." At that time, the writings of accusation in this piece had already been presented, both by the Prosecutor's Office and by the popular accusation that was already present, so three days later, the judge issued the order to open the oral trial.
Almost two months later, on September 7, the association of jurists sent another writing to the Court, insisting on its request to appear. In that second writing, the name of the association had changed (it was no longer the Association of Jurists "for the Defense of Legality and Justice", but "for the Defense of Legality and Guarantees of the Process"), and also the lawyer who was going to represent it. The first was Roberto Orive and the second, Juan Alberto Rubio. In addition, it was still not officially registered, although they started the process for it after their first attempt to appear.
On its Facebook page, also recently created, the association itself confirms that it was not until last November 3, just over two weeks ago, when the Government of the Canary Islands notified them that it was already registered. In that Registry of Associations of the Canary Islands, it appears with an address in Las Palmas de Gran Canaria and defines its activities as "ideological".
Possible "incompatibilities or conflicts of interest"
In her order rejecting that second attempt to appear, the judge also highlighted other defects and lack of "rigor" in the documentation presented and concluded that they could not continue maintaining "cyclical corrections that would only cause avoidable delays". In addition, she insisted that the identity of the people who are part of the association was still unknown and stressed that this is necessary to "be able to rule out incompatibilities or conflicts of interest", which could occur, especially when "the association is made up of lawyers".
In addition to the two lawyers who have tried to appear in this piece, another one has intervened on behalf of the association of jurists, Juan David García Pazos, who also led an environmental association from Fuerteventura to appear in the Stratvs case when the instruction had concluded. In that case, the association itself finally decided to withdraw from the procedure and said it felt "deceived and used" by this lawyer, since it believes that all he did was "contribute noise" and hinder the cause.
It so happens that this same lawyer represented one of the main defendants in the Unión case, Luis Lleó, at least in a hearing in which one of his appeals within that case was resolved. In addition, among other things, García Pazos is the lawyer who defends Francisco Chavanel in the lawsuit filed by prosecutor Ignacio Stampa against this journalist for violation of the right to honor. Stampa filed this lawsuit for the "insults" and "disqualifications" that Chavanel has been suffering, precisely for his participation as prosecutor in the Stratvs case and also in the Unión case.
"Bordering on disrespect"
Initially, the association of jurists alleged that it was moved by the "defense of the public interest and legality" ("without further specification", emphasizes Judge Silvia Muñoz in her order). Later, it spoke of the "defense of the cleanliness of judicial processes and compliance with procedural guarantees", something that the magistrate considers "extravagant" and "bordering on disrespect to the participants in the procedure". Finally, the association defended its "desire to act for the benefit of legality and the principle of equality of any citizen before the law, allegedly altered by the facts of this case." In this regard, the judge emphasizes that the association "does not specify in what such alteration or lack of equal treatment manifests itself".
For its part, the Public Prosecutor's Office emphasizes that "among its confessed purposes, the association projects without disguise distrust towards the actions of the Public Prosecutor's Office." In this regard, it argues that "nothing alarming is contained in this statement", but adds that "distrust is not only tributary of the Public Prosecutor's Office, it is also projected against those who distrust".
On this issue, the prosecutor again quotes another jurist, Niceto Alcalá-Zamora, who in his day warned that popular action can be "unfair and dangerous", among other things because "it lends itself to being the weapon of excited passions, the representation of the most audacious and not, as its name seems to indicate, that of the most numerous: it can even be, and the case has been presented, unfortunately, the collusion of unscrupulous lawyers".
