The governance system of justice in Spain is currently experiencing a deep institutional crisis, largely due to the lack of agreement on the renewal of the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ). This situation has led to an unusual scenario of interim and weakening in the main judicial institutions, which is severely impacting the regular functioning of the courts and tribunals. The population is increasingly concerned about the current political confrontation that is affecting the justice system. The systemic division within the Council is now mirrored in the public opinion, which perceives the judiciary as not impartial due to the influence of political polarization.
To address the loss of trust and legitimacy in the Judiciary, the urgent renewal of the Council is needed to resolve what constitutional experts describe as a “wounded Constitution.” The inability to renew the Council and establish the foundations for a State agreement that advances the modernization and restructuring of the Administration of Justice in the long term, involving all relevant legal stakeholders, represents a failure of political rationality and the will to agree that the Constitution encourages.
The constitutional clauses concerning the appointment of the president of the Supreme Court and the CGPJ, the limitation of the members’ terms to a non-extendable period of five years, and the exercise of the appointment powers for high judicial positions lose their strength and effectiveness due to the lack of renewal. The non-compliance with the constitutional mandate of renewing the Council in time erodes the democratic principle and leads to the extension of the mandates of Council members whose term has already expired.
Some economists also advocate for the renewal of the Council to put an end to the dysfunctional organizational situation that currently characterizes the Judiciary. This situation hinders the good governance of one of the State’s regulatory powers and could impact the confidence of businesses in the legal security of the country. Judges and legal professionals are calling for the end of this period of paralysis that is affecting the daily judicial work.
Various proposals are being formulated by justice operators to reinforce the pillars of legal democracy and overcome the current crisis of governance. It may be plausible to partially reform Article 122 of the Constitution, which governs the CGPJ, to address the perception of the Council as a failed institution. The proposed reform could focus on preserving the Council’s neutral institutional position, opening up to personalities from civil society outside the legal world, and streamlining its composition to make it more operational and functional.
It is essential to correct the dysfunctional mutation of the constitutional design that has occurred in recent times regarding the conception and configuration of the judicial power, which has been altered by the Council’s intrusive involvement in partisan politics. The Judiciary’s independence, impartiality, and strict compliance with the law are key characteristics that should guide the functioning of the Judiciary and the Council.
The goal is to achieve a Council guided by integrity and the ethics of public responsibility in defense of judicial independence, free from party or judicial association influence, to enhance the impartiality of the judiciary. All stakeholders must commit to restoring the identity of justice and promoting a recognizable Justice Administration that serves legal peace and the common good in the 21st century, embodying the ideals of the Rule of Law and Justice.
