Spain's Constitutional Court ruling: no victory lap yet

Spain's Constitutional Court (Tribunal Constitucional) has declined to admit Ángel Gabilondo's amparo appeal against the electoral roll, a decision that does not close the case: the Supreme Court will rule again and the Ombudsman (Defensor del Pueblo) will be able to appeal once more. The Prosecutor's Office may file a further appeal until Tuesday at 3 p.m.

Some court decisions read like a full stop and others are a pause. The rejection of Ángel Gabilondo's amparo appeal by the Constitutional Court belongs to the second category. According to a veteran counsel of the Council of State quoted by **Ramón Pérez-Maura** in **El Debate**, the ruling is «political, certainly better than nothing, and very wrong in law». The same counsel adds that it is «a bit of a trick», because it leaves it arranged for the Supreme Court to rule again and for the Ombudsman to appeal then «properly, not as now».

## What the Constitutional Court decided and why it is not final

The court of guarantees has declined to admit Gabilondo's amparo appeal, but the rejection does not exhaust the route. The Supreme Court will have to rule again on the injunction and, according to this counsel's view, will not be able to delay it. That will open up a new, better-built appeal for the Ombudsman, and there will be the Constitutional Court's president, **Conde-Pumpido**. The decision, therefore, does not settle the conflict: it postpones it.

The counsel sums it up with an image: **Enrique Arnaldo** «has done what he could» and Conde-Pumpido «is waiting, with his gun loaded». The question he poses is who wins. His answer: «I'm afraid Pumpido».

## The Prosecutor's Office has until Tuesday to appeal

There is a second route that could change the outcome. The Public Prosecutor's Office may appeal the rejection of the amparo and, if that appeal succeeds, turn the matter around. The deadline to do so ends on **Tuesday at 3 p.m.** It is a narrow window, but a real one.

A second counsel consulted by the columnist says there is «no possibility whatsoever» of the Supreme Court ruling on the appeals in time to change the electoral roll. In other words, the electoral calendar would not be affected through this judicial route, even though the institutional conflict remains open.

## The political reading: division in the Government's bloc

The interpretation the article considers most accurate comes from a retired senior state official. On his reading, Conde-Pumpido «is bad and sectarian, but not at all stupid and does not want to end up on trial». He would have taken note of the «forceful message from the Supreme Court» and is distancing himself from those who may end up in the dock.

The same official points to **Sofía Puente**, **Félix Bolaños** and **José Manuel Albares** as responsible for a «clumsy falsification of the whole process», and argues that **Sánchez** «will be undone by trusting in Bolaños's supposed legal talent». The article also cites the reference to **García Ortiz** as an example of what Conde-Pumpido would want to avoid.

## A step forward for democracy, with caution

The columnist sees in this decision a «very important» step forward «in the defence of democracy»: division is evident among the Government's allies on the Constitutional Court. But he warns that if the tricks are visible on the table, no one knows what is being done underneath. And he adds a antiestéticar: that the sanchismo faction may go after the election result if it is not the one they want.

It is worth remembering that the claims about intentions, leaks or alleged falsifications come from sources quoted in the article and not from final court rulings. Any reading of incivil liability must be left to the courts.