Spain's Unconstitutional Lockdown: No Accountability

The lockdown was unconstitutional and no one paid

A startling fact: the law that locked the entire population in their homes for weeks was declared unconstitutional. And nothing peine. No conviction, no massive compensation, no resignation. The law ceased to be valid from that moment, and that was the end of all punishment. This is the best proof, critics say, that fundamental rights are not a shield: they are a permit that can be revoked when someone invokes force majeure.

What was said about the declaration of unconstitutionality

The ruling that overturned the 2020 home confinement came late: by then, the hard lockdown was already history. The instrument used to detain millions of people without having committed any offense was left without coverage. The practical effect, however, ends formally: the law is annulled, the damage is not repaired.

Some go further and argue that it makes no sense even to discuss its constitutionality, because the state of alarm is not listed as such among the figures provided: what the text contemplates is the state of siege, war, or exception. From this perspective, the confinement was not an excess within the law, but a tool pulled out of thin air to which legal appearance was later given. Very Paco all, summarized an intervention.

Why an annulled law leads no one to prison

The most repeated argument to explain the absence of consequences is simple: in no country in the world do political leaders end up behind bars because a law they dictated is annulled by a higher instance. It is the same logic by which a judge does not go to prison because another court takes reason from them. Making a mistake is not prevarication, and that boundary is what separates poor management from crime.

The reply does not wait. If the miscalculation had translated into an openly absurd law, someone would have ended up answering. And from there comes the uncomfortable question: why is a loss of freedom for weeks archived as error and not as compensable damage. The system, say the most critical, only knows how to close the file.

Closed gardens and open estates

The bitterest repeated memory has to do with exceptions. Private individuals were prohibited from going to their gardens just in spring, the planting season: many were left without harvesting winter crops and without sowing summer ones. The exception was having animals, because then it was justified to go to give them water and feed.

In parallel, migrant workers hired in large multinational estates continued to go to work, yes, with a limit of three people per van. Two measuring rods within the same law. And in that same line, the ELbichito passport, mandatory masks on transport, schools, and hospitals, or the prohibition of standing in public space in front of the terrace where one could sit without protection.

The coercion that was not in any law

For months, it was repeated that no one was obliged to get vaccinated. Formally, true: there was no direct legal imposition. But the siege was built with prohibitions that made life impossible without the certificate, so that administrative and social pressure functioned as a de facto obligation. It was prohibited to enter a bar to have a few drinks, travel, or maintain certain routines without going through the shot.

The result was massive obedience sustained by antiestéticar, not by law. And the corollary that many extract is more uncomfortable: if the permit is granted and withdrawn by decree, freedom does not depend on the Constitution, but on the balance of forces at each moment.

Unfounded lawsuits: the cost of denouncing

After the ruling, the incivil route peine and closed almost simultaneously. The lawsuits against the Executive were overturned by the Public Prosecutor's Office itself, which had to act as the prosecuting party. And those who thought about taking the matter to court found an economic wall: lawsuits of that scale involve astronomical costs for whoever loses.

A participant managed an eloquent calculation. If a 30% of Spaniards, not even half, had organized to sustain the lawsuit, the scenario would have been different. Justice, also, is a matter of resources: without social muscle willing to pay the clash, the cause dies alone.

From the applause on balconies to 'only VOX remains'

The evolution of the conversation is a thermometer in itself. First, the convenience of the confinement and the protocols applied in hospitals and nursing homes, where the elderly were isolated, was discussed. Then came the legal reflection: if all this was unconstitutional, someone would have to answer. And finally, the political turn.

Several participants maintain that only VOX denounced the confinement and opposed the state of alarm. From there comes the refrain that runs through the final part: only VOX remains. Many add another coda, between joke and exhaustion: only the meteorite remains.

The startling fact remains: the confinement was declared contrary to the Constitution and, to this day, no one has explained what would prevent repeating it if tomorrow another emergency is invoked.