Sánchez governs by decree and by alleged crime, columnist claims
A column in El Debate says two decrees reached Spain's parliament without being approved in the Council of Ministers. Key points of the institutional clash.
English · Original discussion in Spanish · Published
A column in El Debate by Ramón Pérez-Maura claims the Spanish government sent parliament two decrees that had not been approved in the Council of Ministers, and calls on the PP and Vox not to attend the vote. The text contains no judicial ruling declaring any crime; it is a political and journalistic denunciation.
## The accusation: two decrees without a Council
El Debate published on **1 October 2026** a column by **Ramón Pérez-Maura** under the title "Sánchez governs by decree and by alleged crime". The piece claims the government sent parliament two decrees that had not been approved in the Council of Ministers. According to his account, after Tuesday's Council there were two unprecedented press conferences. The housing minister, he says, did not have the text of what had been approved because it did not exist.
The text states that the parliamentary allies whose vote was essential went to bed without knowing the text they were to approve. The next day, the **BOE** (Spain's official state gazette) published only one of the two decrees. That, for the columnist, proves the other was still being worked out during the day and would be submitted to parliament without having gone through the Council of Ministers. It is a serious accusation, made as opinion, and the column offers no judicial ruling to back it up.
The key to the matter lies in the procedure. In Spain, decree-laws are approved in the Council of Ministers, published in the BOE and then must be validated by Congress. If a text has not gone through the Council, the reproach is no small matter: it affects the formation of the executive's will. However, the column does not show the Council's minutes or an official certification confirming that the two decrees were left out. Its force lies in the absence of the text and the delay in publication.
## The BOE, the King and Bolaños's signature
The column notes that on Wednesday only one of the two decrees appeared in the BOE. The other, it maintains, was still being adjusted. From this it deduces that a royal decree-law not approved by the Council of Ministers would be submitted for the King's signature. The King, it recalls, has a right to examine such decrees which, in the columnist's view, would not be recognised.
The article points to **Félix Bolaños**, minister of the presidency and secretary of the Council of Ministers, as possibly responsible for usurping the functions of that body by submitting an unapproved decree for the King's signature and countersigning it. It mentions the possibility of a incivil complaint against the prime minister and against Bolaños. It also cites the option of challenging the decree before the **Constitutional Court**, although the columnist is pessimistic given the conduct of **Cándido Conde-Pumpido**. These are legal scenarios the column itself raises as hypotheses.
The King's signature on a decree-law is not a decorative formality. The 1978 Constitution establishes that the King sanctions and enacts the laws and that countersignature falls to the prime minister or the competent ministers. That countersignature transfers political responsibility to the executive. The column claims that this chain was broken here. It remains to be seen whether any judicial body or the Council of Ministers itself confirms that version.
## The vote in parliament and the PP and Vox strategy
The columnist calls on the **PP** and **Vox** not to attend the trinc day's session. If they do not show up, the decrees would pass anyway, he admits, but then the forces supporting the government would have to bear the cost of approving contradictory measures. The column specifically mentions the most radical measures it attributes to **Sumar**.
For Ramón Pérez-Maura, a half-empty chamber would be evidence of the democratic degradation he attributes to Sánchez's governments. The piece speaks of a constitutional abusa and incivil gravity. It is worth recalling that a decree-law must be validated by Congress within 30 days of publication, under article 86 of the Constitution. There is no judicial conviction.
## The accusation: two decrees without a Council
El Debate published on **1 October 2026** a column by **Ramón Pérez-Maura** under the title "Sánchez governs by decree and by alleged crime". The piece claims the government sent parliament two decrees that had not been approved in the Council of Ministers. According to his account, after Tuesday's Council there were two unprecedented press conferences. The housing minister, he says, did not have the text of what had been approved because it did not exist.
The text states that the parliamentary allies whose vote was essential went to bed without knowing the text they were to approve. The next day, the **BOE** (Spain's official state gazette) published only one of the two decrees. That, for the columnist, proves the other was still being worked out during the day and would be submitted to parliament without having gone through the Council of Ministers. It is a serious accusation, made as opinion, and the column offers no judicial ruling to back it up.
The key to the matter lies in the procedure. In Spain, decree-laws are approved in the Council of Ministers, published in the BOE and then must be validated by Congress. If a text has not gone through the Council, the reproach is no small matter: it affects the formation of the executive's will. However, the column does not show the Council's minutes or an official certification confirming that the two decrees were left out. Its force lies in the absence of the text and the delay in publication.
## The BOE, the King and Bolaños's signature
The column notes that on Wednesday only one of the two decrees appeared in the BOE. The other, it maintains, was still being adjusted. From this it deduces that a royal decree-law not approved by the Council of Ministers would be submitted for the King's signature. The King, it recalls, has a right to examine such decrees which, in the columnist's view, would not be recognised.
The article points to **Félix Bolaños**, minister of the presidency and secretary of the Council of Ministers, as possibly responsible for usurping the functions of that body by submitting an unapproved decree for the King's signature and countersigning it. It mentions the possibility of a incivil complaint against the prime minister and against Bolaños. It also cites the option of challenging the decree before the **Constitutional Court**, although the columnist is pessimistic given the conduct of **Cándido Conde-Pumpido**. These are legal scenarios the column itself raises as hypotheses.
The King's signature on a decree-law is not a decorative formality. The 1978 Constitution establishes that the King sanctions and enacts the laws and that countersignature falls to the prime minister or the competent ministers. That countersignature transfers political responsibility to the executive. The column claims that this chain was broken here. It remains to be seen whether any judicial body or the Council of Ministers itself confirms that version.
## The vote in parliament and the PP and Vox strategy
The columnist calls on the **PP** and **Vox** not to attend the trinc day's session. If they do not show up, the decrees would pass anyway, he admits, but then the forces supporting the government would have to bear the cost of approving contradictory measures. The column specifically mentions the most radical measures it attributes to **Sumar**.
For Ramón Pérez-Maura, a half-empty chamber would be evidence of the democratic degradation he attributes to Sánchez's governments. The piece speaks of a constitutional abusa and incivil gravity. It is worth recalling that a decree-law must be validated by Congress within 30 days of publication, under article 86 of the Constitution. There is no judicial conviction.
Also available in: Deutsch
Summary of a discussion on Burbuja.info - Foro de economía, actualidad y política., translated from Spanish and reviewed before publication. Read the full discussion (2 replies).
More summaries
-
What is Spain's PM Sánchez really after?
Sánchez's government may be seeking a state of emergency to avoid elections, with the situation in Ceuta as the focus of the strategy.
-
Zapatero Faces Tax Fraud Probe Over Royal Jewelry Gift
Former Spanish PM Rodríguez Zapatero investigated for alleged tax fraud concerning jewelry received in 2007. Defense claims it was a gift from King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.
-
Iustitia Europa vs. VOX: The Party's Origins
Iustitia Europa, born from the Liberum lawyers' association, targets VOX. The 'useful vote' debate reignites conflict between the two parties.
-
Spain's Permanent Deputation deadlock: constitutional warning from Sosa Wagner and Fuertes
With the Cortes dissolved, the Congress Permanent Deputation is tied 34-34. Two jurists warn of a constitutional risk if the Speaker casts a vote.
-
Spain's vote-splitting left faces electoral wipeout
With Ada Colau's Frente Amplio and Irene Montero's Podemos running separately, polls give each brand under 6% and 2.8%. Splitting the vote costs seats.
-
The grandchildren and the civil servant (Gabriel Albiac in El Debate)
Two Spanish Supreme Court rulings strike down parts of the regulation of Spain's grandchildren law, not the law itself. The Government presents it as an attack by the judiciary on the legislature.