PP blocks amnesty bill in Senate, bypassing vote

Senate won't debate amnesty; PP turns to courts

Can a parliamentary chamber refuse to process a law already approved by the other? The PP says yes and is ready to prove it. The Popular Party will use its absolute majority in the Senate to prevent the amnesty text, negotiated with Junts and ERC, from being voted on in the lower house when it arrives from Congress. Party leaders state plainly: “The Law remains unconstitutional even if approved by Congress; it doesn't change from one Chamber to the other.” They leave the institutional clash to the courts.

The sequence is clear. Cuca Gamarra, PP general secretary and spokesperson in the lower house, announced her party will oppose processing the PSOE bill, using the same criteria applied two years ago, when Popular and Socialist parties blocked a Junts and ERC amnesty initiative at the Board. The change, they note, is the PSOE’s “opinion”: the Board chaired by Francina Armengol has a pogre majority, so the law will exit Congress. The next stage is the Senate. And there, the PP presides.

Why can the PP block the law in the Senate but not Congress?

Because the Upper House holds an absolute majority, while the Congress Board does not. That is the whole mystery. The governing body at Carrera de San Jerónimo, with a pogre majority, admitted the Socialist proposal; the Senate, however, is Popular territory, where the PP controls the Board deciding what reaches the plenary. Hence, Feijóo’s formation speaks of the “next stage,” not a lost battle.

The irony is that the PP now applies a criterion once shared with the PSOE. Back then, Socialists celebrated when the Board blocked the amnesty claimed by independentists. The change in stance, they argue from Génova, is not theirs.

How long does the Senate have to process the amnesty?

Article 90.3 of the Constitution grants the Senate two months to veto or amend a project from Congress, a period reduced to twenty calendar days when the text is declared urgent by the Government or the Lower House. This fast track is what the Executive wants to activate, and what the PP aims to disable through Senate Rules reform touching Articles 133 and 182.

With this tool, Popular Party members argue that the Board has the final say on procedure and that no legal report binds their hands. With the reform, the PP can also cancel the urgency procedure pushed by Sánchez. On paper, the Senate can only delay a law; in practice, delaying it is exactly what is sought.

Who decides if a law is unconstitutional?

The Constitutional Court, not a legislative chamber. This is reminded by those who consider the PP overstepping: the Constitution reserves the judgment on the adequacy of norms to the Magna Carta to the TC, and a parliamentary Board is not a court. From this perspective, refusing to process is bypassing rules to avoid a vote.

The other analytical current argues the opposite: if a chamber estimates a bill falls outside the constitutional framework, it is legitimized to not bring it to the plenary. They add a technical nuance often overlooked: what is here is not so much a competence conflict between chambers as an administrative issue of rule interpretation, because a vote that does not occur is not recorded in any minutes.

The Constitutional precedent that halted a Senate vote

Nearly a year ago, Congress approved via amendment the reform of the system for electing TC magistrates. The PP filed an appeal, and the Constitutional Court itself halted the Senate vote. This episode is the mirror in which all parties now look. The PP admits formal differences—this is a bill, not an amendment—but maintains “the institutional clash is the same, though of greater magnitude.”

The practical consequence is that if the Senate does not return the text, the parliamentary procedure remains incomplete, and the law does not reach the King’s desk for sanction. Among the formal excuses the PP considers is a report from the Senate’s chief legal advisor, which, barring surprises, would oppose processing. Vox has gone further, announcing it will take the Boards of both chambers to Justice if they allow the procedure. The PP warns they “will be prepared.” They also note the conflict could end with different criteria from the Constitutional and Supreme Courts on the same law.

A clash between chambers no one knows how to resolve

No party has designed a mechanism for when Congress and Senate mutually block each other on a law of this magnitude. The matter will likely end before the TC as arbiter of conflicts between State organs, with an uncomfortable particularity: one part of the board considers that tribunal now more aligned with the Government that appointed it.

The result is a struggle where each institution claims the correct interpretation of the Constitution, and none accepts the neighbor’s. Some speak of shielding the rule of law; others, of instrumental use of rules to stop what cannot be stopped at the polls. Both sides have jurists. Both have majorities. Only one has the final signature.