PSOE proposes law to limit popular prosecution in Spain

PSOE moves to shield its circle from judicial scrutiny

The PSOE has registered a bill that limits the exercise of "acusación popular" (a legal mechanism allowing citizens or groups to prosecute crimes) and expands the grounds for recusing judges. According to tweets launching the debate, the rule would apply to ongoing proceedings, directly affecting cases such as the investigation into Begoña Gómez. The text also prevents associations of judges and prosecutors from joining lawsuits, a move interpreted as an attempt to halt investigations touching the government president's inner circle.

The proposal is not an innocent draft. The transitional provision accompanying it — highlighted in one of the initial messages — makes clear the intention is immediate application, without waiting for future legislatures. This means open procedures could be affected right away. The popular prosecution, which allows any citizen or association to join a case even if they are not direct victims, would be practically neutralized in cases involving the governing coalition.

The prosecutor as a shield

One of the most repeated arguments in the analysis is the role of the Public Prosecutor's Office. If private prosecution is eliminated and the Prosecutor depends on the Government, who investigates? In cases like Begoña Gómez's, it is noted, either the Prosecutor initiates it or the private prosecution does. Without the latter, and with a General Prosecutor marked by their dependence on the Executive, the case is archived or never peine. The prosecutor, they remind us, is being tried precisely for acting according to Government interests, reinforcing the suspicion that the law seeks to close the door to any uncomfortable investigation.

Popular prosecution has been key in cases like Watergate, it is argued, where the press and civic pressure exposed what the official system wanted to bury. In Spain, it allowed parties to join cases such as Urdangarin or Bárcenas. Now, the PSOE wants to limit that path. The lingering question is: why antiestéticar popular prosecutions if there is nothing to hide?

The PP precedent and double standards

This is not the first time an attempt has been made to limit popular prosecution. In 2017, the PP proposed preventing parties, unions, and political foundations from exercising it. At the time, the PSOE criticized it harshly. Now it is the PSOE driving the measure. The archives show headlines biting each other's tails: PP spokesperson in Congress Rafael Hernando justified his party's intent to "limit" popular prosecution to determine the legitimacy of those making a "twisted" use of procedural paths without being affected. The PSOE then called it an attack on justice. The current one calls it modernization.

The twist has not gone unnoticed. Some argue that if the PP had made a similar law for Gürtel and Bárcenas, the scandal would have been historic. But since the "good guys" are in charge, anything goes. The law also expands judge recusal grounds, potentially removing magistrates who have made political statements. The criticism is immediate: recusing judges for political statements when the Government controls the Prosecutor sounds like trying to choose the referee.

Allies and the cost of governability

The law needs votes. And here Junts enters. Puigdemont's party, which already toppled a government for its own interests, holds the key. Speculation suggests they will support the norm because it benefits them: separatists are also interested in weakening popular prosecution in their own cases. Meanwhile, the PSOE continues paying the price for governability dependent on partners who do not hesitate to extort. Debt forgiveness, pardons, ERTEs... all part of the same game.

If passed, the law could end up at the Constitutional Court. But by then, the damage to ongoing investigations will already be done. Justice, they say, is not equal for everyone. And this law confirms it.

---

What does the reader miss if they don't read the full source?

Detailed analysis of the transitional provision allowing application to ongoing processes, the parallel with the PP's 2017 attempt, and the list of affected cases. Also, the political calculation on how Junts and other allies can condition the vote.