The alteration of the agenda to approve the referendum and transitoriness laws. The use of article 81.3 of the standing orders of the Parliament of Catalonia

Abstract

Abstract:
The present investigation tries to analyse the use that was made of article 81.3 of the Catalan Parliamentary rules of procedure to alter the order of the day and approve both the Referendum Law and the Transitoriness Act. For this, first the content of the article as well as the dubious questions about it have been examined. Secondly, the interpretation given to this precept by the Catalan parliamentary majority in order to introduce both bills as well as the consequences that it had in the form of appeals has been summarized. Thirdly, the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court has been contrasted with the different issues raised during the approval procedure of the Referendum and Transitoriness Acts. Fourthly, an attempt has been made to make a proposal for a resolution of the appeals filed and on which the Constitutional Court has not yet ruled. And fifthly, analyse the STCC 10/2018 and 27/2018 that solve the appeal in relation to the agreements of the Parliamentary Bureau that rejected
the request for the CGE’s dictum.
Once all this has been done, six have been the main conclusions. One: that the Catalan Parliament Bureau was so obliged to carry out an analysis beyond the strict verification of the formal requirements because there were some execution incidents that expressly obliged it, as well as the duty to agree on its inadmissibility because the proposals were of obvious law and evidently unconstitutional. Two: that the Constitutional Court should rule against the part of the Citizens’ appeal where it was requested to annul the agreements of the Plenary by means of which the agenda was altered, but it should resolve in favour of that other part of the same resource where it was requested cancel the agreements of the Plenary through which an ad hoc legislative procedure was created through art. 81.3 RPC. Three: that the SSTC 10/2018 and 27/2018 positively estimate both the appeal of the Socialist parliamentary group and one of the parties to the appeal for protection of Citizens, in which it was requested to declare the nullity of both the Agreements of the Bureau of the 6th and September 7 for which it was rejected to process the request for such opinion and its effects. Four: it does not seem to be manifestly unconstitutional that, through art. 81.3 RPC, the agenda can be modified to include the debate and vote on a proposed law, an affirmation that may well be extended to all those precepts of the other regulations parliamentarians whose content is similar. Five: that neither art. 81.3 RPC nor any other precept that develops the alteration of the agenda in the other parliamentary regulations, enables the parliamentary majority to create an ad hoc legislative procedure through which subsequent proposals can be approved. Of law. And six: that the main reason why they ended up processing the proposals of law in this way is none other than the will of the Catalan parliamentary majority (and, thus his government) to process and approve with appearance of legality two propositions of law that were already in their origin evidently unconstitutional.