The Constitution is me: Juan Soto Ivars analyzes the ruling

Cándido Conde-Pumpido maintains that doubting the Tribunal Constitucional (Spain's Constitutional Court) is equivalent to doubting both the Constitution and democracy. Those who most aggressively challenged the Constitution—the pardoned separatists—are now receiving forgiveness from the very State the Court upholds.

In an interview with **El País** on Sunday, **Cándido Conde-Pumpido** left a quote worth framing: "Whoever questions the Constitutional Court is questioning the Constitution, and whoever questions the Constitution is questioning democracy." The President of the Court left no room for doubt. His interpretation, it seems, is not up for debate.

## The reward for challenging the Constitution

There is an irony that Conde-Pumpido himself seems to miss. Those who most frenetically questioned the Constitution and democracy are precisely the individuals granted amnesty by the Constitutional Court. According to the columnist, the Catalan separatists receiving State forgiveness now spent years treating the Catalan population as their own property. They claimed the Constitution did not protect them; now, the court presided over by Conde-Pumpido certifies that the State pardons them.

It is true they have had to pay a price: supporting the **PSOE** (the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party). But no one understands this deal better than the President of the Constitutional Court himself. A government candidate was granted amnesty in exchange for the presidency, and the Court endorses it. One might think that challenging the Constitution actually carries a reward.

## Embezzlement, video games, and infinite lives

The **Tribunal Supremo** (Supreme Court) ruled that embezzlement was part of the *procés* (the Catalan independence movement) and should not be covered by amnesty. It argued that political leaders saved money by committing crimes using public funds. According to its President, the Constitutional Court uses its own vocabulary to address "embezzlement" regarding the amnesty. He suggests that while embezzlement may have occurred, it is irrelevant because the amnesty simply grants amnesty.

It is like playing a video game with infinite lives and invulnerability. Such is the interpretation of fundamental laws when you preside over the Constitutional Court and have a politicized majority in your favor. The Amnesty Law passed. The Gender Violence Law passed. All thanks to a Constitutional Court that makes the Constitution as elastic as the **PSOE** needs it to be at any given moment.

## Dissenting votes and uncomfortable disagreement

The problem is that the minority challenges the court through dissenting votes. According to Conde-Pumpido, this is hardly democratic. The President of the Court seems irritated by the existence of individual opinions. He reacts much like **Pedro Sánchez** when Congress rejects his decrees: he views dissent as anti-democratic and cites other countries where such discrepancies are not possible.

A few lines earlier in the same interview, Conde-Pumpido stated that the Spanish Constitution allows for significant room for interpretation. For *his* interpretation. And indeed, it requires great flexibility and a postmodern character to believe that certain laws are constitutional depending on the context. Everything can be summarized by reading between the lines of the President of the Constitutional Court's words: "The Constitution is me."