Acceso usuarios
José María Coello de Portugal Martínez del Peral 
El recientemente aprobado Real Decreto 524/2022, de 27 de junio, por el que se dispone el cambio de denominación del Ejército del Aire por la de Ejército del Aire y del Espacio, es una norma que acuerda la alteración de la denominación del Ejército del Aire prevista en el artículo 8 de la Constitución para este ejército. Las razones que motivan la oportunidad del cambio se expresan de forma adecuada en la parte expositiva de la norma, pero un Real Decreto no es una fuente de Derecho apropiada para operar este cambio de denominación, ni para alterar el nombre que la Constitución prevé para este ejército, por lo que esta norma puede resultar contraria a la Constitución. Paradójicamente, este cambio de denominación puede resultar muy apropiado, pero debe acometerse mediante una reforma del texto de la Constitución y no mediante el dictado de un Real Decreto.
The recently approved Royal Decree 524/2022, of June 27, which provides for the change of the name of the Air Force to the Air and Space Army, is a regulation that approves the alteration of the name of the Air Force provided for in article 8 of the Constitution for this army. The reasons that motivate the opportunity of the change are adequately expressed in the expository part of the norm, but a Royal Decree is not an appropriate source of Law to operate this change of denomination, nor to alter the name that the Constitution establishes for this army, for which reason this norm can be contrary to the Constitution. Paradoxically, this change of denomination may be very appropriate, but it must be carried out by means of a reform of the text of the Constitution and not by means of the dictation of a Royal Decree.
Summary: I. THE JUSTIFICATION OF A REFORM: A RULE THAT IS OPPORTUNE IN SUBSTANCE BUT INADEQUATE IN FORM. II. A LEGAL DEBATE ON THE MENTION OF THE ARMIES THAT BEGAN IN THE CONSTITUENT PROCESS. III. ANATOMY OF AN INSUFFICIENT REGULATION: A WELL-MOTIVATED EXPOSITORY PART, TOGETHER WITH AN OPERATIVE PART CONTRARY TO LAW. 1. A convincing motivation. 2. An incorrect dispositive part. IV. REASONS FOR INADEQUACY OF A RULE. 1.º Violation of the principle of hierarchy of norms. 2.º Infringement of the principle of separation of powers. 3.º Injury to the freezing of the formal rank established by the Constitution. 4.º Injury to the principle of organic competence. 5.º Exceeding of the margin delegated by the Constitution for the organization of the Armed Forces. 6.º De facto repeal of the Constitution, without even mentioning it. 7.º Provision for a change of name that formally distances the Armed Forces from the constitutional norm. 8.º Impossibility of formulating a single denomination with two protections of different rank. 9.º Impossibility of bringing the dictated norm back to the ordinary exercise of the regulatory power. 10.º A vicious legal rubric of the sole article of Royal Decree 524/2022, of June 27, which provides for the change of the name of the Air Army to the Air and Space Army. V. A PARADOXICAL CONCLUSION: AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL NORM THAT ANNOUNCES A NECESSARY REFORM OF THE CONSTITUTION.
