Article 117 of our Constitution states that "Justice emanates from the people...", it must be independent, impartial, and serve the citizenry. It is the third branch of government and its obligation is to ensure compliance with all the laws and norms that make up our rule of law and to be its guarantor. Its actions must be exemplary, serving as a paradigm and social guideHowever, its social perception has been worsening. The divisions within the General Council of the Judiciary, the highest governing body of judges, between progressives and conservatives, the continuous brawls and power struggles more typical of politicians than judges, are not edifying at all. Professional standing is not given by the position, but by attitude and proper performance. This state of affairs does great damage to this institution
In the same vein of image deterioration, it is regrettable to see judges and prosecutors demonstrating outside courthouses, wearing their robes, against the Amnesty Law, when its content was unknown. Now, the Constitutional Court has validated it, and everything points to the European Court of Justice also endorsing it. No branch of the state should criticize another simply because it dislikes a decision made within its powers. The judicial collective cannot be so thin-skinned and must accept criticism when it is justified; not all opinions about their conduct can be labeled as interference. When a judge wears the robe, their political ideas must take a backseat, and objectivity must guide all their actions. In a democracy, all institutions are subject to popular sovereignty.
The procedure for leaks in judicial processes also does not constitute a model of impartiality. There are leaks in almost all cases, but only those that can be used to the detriment of the opposing party are investigated. A clear example of the partisan use of justice. Order must be established, jurisprudence set.
As a clear example, the trial of the attorney general, which is nothing more than a political power struggle. The person who prosecutes crime is being judged at the behest of the alleged criminal. The leaked information—a crime of revealing secrets—was known to hundreds of people, and a secret is no longer a secret if it has already been disseminated. Every person on trial is innocent until proven guilty. In this case, it seems to be the reverse
During this process we have seen things that call attention: an instruction made in a singular way (it gives a lot of weight to some testimonies and to others—the journalists—it does not take them into consideration), the Civil Guard does not provide evidence, only impressions, and it ignores whether it had permission for an exhaustive search, but it points to a culprit. The Bar Association of Madrid, which should represent its thousands of members, takes sides with the prosecution, when there is no evidence whatsoever, and from the presidency of the Madrid government, lies are disseminated with public money, they even boast about it, and conspiracies against an alleged fraudster are invented.
There has been a clear erosion in the prestige of several institutions, with the judicial system in the lead. Citizen trust has been broken. Even in Europe, people are astonished by what is happening in Spain. Be careful what you do, we may be facing a new Dreyfus (1) or Garzón (2) case.
The damage is done, let's see if the ruling doesn't make it worse. The Supreme Court should be brave by issuing a forceful, well-argued, and exemplary ruling that rectifies this situation
Notes.
(1) In France, the Jewish army captain Alfred Dreyfus (1859-1935) was accused of treason. After 12 years in prison, his innocence was proven. A major scandal ensued. This case divided French public opinion. It constitutes a clear example of antisemitism, which contributed to the end of the Third Republic(2) Spanish judge Baltasar Garzón was sentenced in 2010 to 11 years of disqualification. In 2021, the UN Human Rights Committee concluded that this sentence was arbitrary because the proceedings did not comply with guarantees of impartiality and were not based on "sufficiently explicit provisions." The UN demanded that Spain expunge his criminal record, grant him adequate reparation for the damages suffered, and adopt non-repetition measures