Justice and citizenship

Article 117 of our Constitution states that “Justice emanates from the people..”, it can be considered as a popular delegation to the state. However, in recent years the public consideration of this power has diminished.

According to recent studies, institutional trust in justice does not pass (4.9 out of 10) and if a political scandal is judged, it decreases to 3.7. Only 40% of Spaniards believe in the independence of the judiciary, compared to 57% in Europe. Denmark, Sweden, and Germany are above 80%. More than 65% of those surveyed believe that lawfare (judicial war or judicialization of politics) exists. A large majority (82%) think it is too slow (*). These figures are conclusive. They support a notable citizen distrust. There is clear damage to prestige and image.

The deadlines are usually too long. Some cases take 16 years to investigate and others more than 13 years to judge. Then, when the conviction arrives, undue delay is alleged as a mitigating factor. There is the impression that, depending on who the accused is, the procedural speed is different. Although it sounds like a cliché, delayed justice is not justice.

Lawfare exists, some political forces have suffered from it. Investigations that, within a few months, it was already known that there was no case, remained open for years, seeking media punishment for electoral purposes. An example is the harassment of the president of the government's family. Citizens do not understand how a corrupter and corrupt (Víctor de Aldama) does not go to prison nor does he return the loot obtained through dishonest means as demanded by the prosecution. It is not credible that for some, deleting messages from their mobile phone is almost an admission of guilt, while for others it is not even considered. There cannot be two different standards.

Nor is the procedure clear regarding the many leaks about ongoing judicial cases. All are governed by the same law, but only some are investigated. Convicting sentences must be based on evidence, not on indications and inferences giving credibility only to some witnesses. A new jurisprudence is being created.

Contributing to this distrust are popular accusations, which were created so that people who have no interest in a case can intervene in it. They do not seek the truth or to do justice. The judicial action is only a lever for political opposition, extortion, or outright blackmail. Some judges admit accusations based solely on press clippings for processing. Others, more courageous, have expelled them from the case. Here their lordships must reach an agreement.

A judge is a public official, who is paid with our taxes and owes allegiance to the common good, not to corporatism, a concept that has been declining in all state bodies and little in the judiciary. In the last judicial year, out of more than 5500 judges, only 15 were sanctioned. There must be stricter enforcement of disciplinary regulations.

The majority of judges only want to do their job well and are little responsible for this deterioration. Others, the fewer, aware of their impunity, place their ideas above the due impartiality. Politics is not made from a courthouse. Those who wish to participate should run for elections. Reform is urgent.