Acceso usuarios
[1]
Madrid, España
El devenir del siglo presente en plena revolución tecnológica también ha significado importantes cambios en el funcionamiento de nuestro Parlamento. El principio clásico reconocido en nuestro texto constitucional del voto de diputados y senadores como personal e indelegable ha sido objeto de un largo desarrollo normativo y jurisprudencial por parte de nuestro TC. Se han sucedido escenarios como, el proceso soberanista en Cataluña, la hiper fragmentación y polarización de la vida parlamentaria, la complejidad y super especialización de la actividad de las cámaras, la pandemia, etc. En todos ellos, la actividad parlamentaria y sus procedimientos han tenido que ir readaptándose. Pero también y en paralelo, la tecnología ha sido una herramienta objeto de uso con intereses políticos. El ejercicio del voto por procedimientos telemáticos ha sido utilizado de manera interesada por algunos grupos parlamentarios, tratando de tensionar ciertas regulaciones normativas existentes. Y esto se ha hecho, además, desatendiendo e incumpliendo jurisprudencia del TC clara y consolidada al respecto. De ahí que en los últimos cuatro años se hayan interpuesto demasiados amparos parlamentarios sobre este asunto, trasladando una vez más a nuestro máximo intérprete cuestiones “políticas” revestidas de matices procedimentales y de interpretaciones forzadas. La tecnología, como herramienta al servicio de la actividad parlamentaria entendemos que no debe tener contenido político. El TC en su jurisprudencia debe evitar que así sea, todo ello en el ánimo de poder mantener una interpretación estable y coherente y con vocación de cierta estabilidad en el tiempo.
The present century amid the technological revolution has also meant important changes in the functioning of our parliament. The classic principle recognised in our constitutional text of the vote of deputies and senators as personal and non-delegable has been the subject of a long regulatory and jurisprudential development by our TC. Scenarios such as the sovereignty process in Catalonia, the hyper fragmentation and polarisation of parliamentary life, the complexity and super specialisation of the activity of the chambers, the pandemic, etc., have all occurred. In all of them, parliamentary activity and its procedures have had to be readapted. But also, and in parallel, technology has been a tool used for political interests. The exercise of voting by telematic procedures has been used in a self-interested way by some parliamentary groups, trying to strain certain existing normative regulations. And this has been done, moreover, disregarding and failing to comply with clear and consolidated jurisprudence of the TC in this respect. Hence, in the last four years, too many parliamentary appeals have been filed on this issue, once again transferring to our highest interpreter ‘political’ issues covered with procedural nuances and forced interpretations. Technology, as a tool at the service of parliamentary activity, should not, in our opinion, have political content. In its jurisprudence, the TC must prevent this from happening, all in the spirit of maintaining a stable and coherent interpretation with a certain degree of stability over time.
Summary: I. INTRODUCTION. II. THE IMPORTANCE OF CONTEXT, THE JUDGMENT OF TC 86/2024, OF 3 JUNE, AGAIN A PARLIAMENTARY AMPARO OF ‘GENERAL POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES.’ a) the context, b) the recurring issue of telematic voting but in a different context, c) the issue of voting in person, the argument of the physical space ‘seat of sovereignty’, d) the issue of special constitutional significance in parliamentary appeals, the constant dizziness of ‘general political consequences’, e) circumventing the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court with watermarks, f) there is no requirement for disobedience, the incident is not admissible (art. 92 LOTC) and the legislature starts up. III. THE REFORM OF THE REGULATIONS OF THE PARLIAMENT OF CATALONIA (RPC). REFORM OF ART. 95 AND ITS NEW ART. 98 bis. a) The contents of the Reform; b) Opinion 2/2024, of 23 July, of the Council for Statutory Guarantees (DCGE). IV. A NEW DEVELOPMENT IN CASE LAW, A TELEMATIC VOTE ERRONEOUS and RELEVANT TO THE OUTCOME. IV. FINAL THOUGHTS ON THE FRUSTRATION and MELANCHOLY USE AND ABUSE OF TECHNOLOGY.
