There is a general lack of knowledge in our institutions about the difference between the "optional" power: the option to act or not to act, versus the "discretionary" power: to ACT using criteria of opportunity (utility), legality and proportionality. That is to say, when Article 9.3 of our EC says "... legal certainty, responsibility and the prohibition of arbitrariness on the part of the public authorities." it refers to OBLIGATIONS. So why do demands for transparency continue to go unpunished before our transparency councils? Why if there is a Law 2/2023 on the protection of corruption whistleblowers in 2025 we still do not have the Whistleblower Protection Authority? we understand that at this point all our powers know how to differentiate between subjective and objective law, because if the service they provide to the Kingdom of Spain is a function of RIGOR what we get is LAXITY?
Isonomy is a term of Greek origin that means "equality before the law" or "equality of rights". In theory, Spain is a State of Law whose Constitution proclaims the equality of all citizens before the law. However, in practice, this equality – isonomy – is systematically violated, particularly by the existence of judicial privileges and a judicial culture that has consolidated an untouchable caste within the judiciary. Far from being a democratic guarantee, the current institutional design has allowed for more than forty years the existence of "contralegem" judicial decisions - contrary to the law - which, by remaining unpunished and unchallengeable, violate the rights of citizens without the possibility of effective reparation.
The feeling of detachment, distrust or indifference that citizens show towards public institutions is due to the perception of inefficiency, corruption, lack of representativeness or disconnection with their real problems. The main reasons are obvious: lack of transparency or accountability, policies far removed from social needs, corruption or political clientelism, excessive or ineffective bureaucracy, inaction in the face of social or economic crises and self-interested judicialization of politics and instrumental use of justice. From the citizen's experience, the answer – unfortunately – seems to be no, and we can prove it with concrete evidence and personal experience.
Monarchy and dictatorship are extreme hierarchical systems that represent clear examples of excessive concentration of power in a single person or a small elite group: North Korea, Afghanistan, Cuba... are current examples. There are other so-called "democratic" countries where hierarchical structures continue to exist that, in practice, undermine the principles of plurality, transparency and control that should define a true democracy. It is grotesque and deeply disheartening to observe how these "de facto hierarchical" systems perpetuate vices: concentration of power, corruption and lack of accountability. Current examples are: Venezuela and Russia, ... and Spain also?
On January 1, 1986, Spain joined the European Union (EU), formerly called EEC, which allowed integration into a common market and access to European funds, which boosted the country's economic and social development. In 1999, it adopted the euro as its official currency, reinforcing its commitment to economic and monetary union. Although Spain has made significant progress in implementing the "acquis communautaire", challenges remain in areas such as the environment, justice and competition. The most embarrassing part is undoubtedly the poor management or improper use of structural and cohesion funds. This has led to sanctions or returns of funds. What happens to our powers with money?
We live in changing times, where the truth, no matter how hard they try to hide it, ends up coming to light. When the powers that be violate the rules of the rule of law to silence those who denounce corruption, it is a historical pattern that anticipates a turning point. The desperation of the corrupt reaches its climax, we have been marked by impunity for 40 years, many citizens are alert and aware of the atrocities committed from the spheres of power. What is it that really worries these characters? Are they afraid of ending up in prison? Are they obsessed with securing their fortunes? Or perhaps they fantasize about escaping to destinations such as the United Arab Emirates?
The "pro-homine interpretation" is an essential legal principle in the field of human rights, the purpose of which is to guarantee the maximum protection and effectiveness of fundamental rights. This principle, widely recognized internationally, is also enshrined in our Constitution, specifically in article 10.2. .. I wonder: how is it possible that we find ourselves before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) demanding fundamental rights, such as equality, when our internal regulations are full of provisions that reflect rigor and commitment to their protection?
We are curious about the concern that European and National Institutions have about the arrival of Artificial Intelligence Services to the citizen. We turn to this "Cursed Tool" that can make us "smarter" to define us "without disrespecting any honorable citizen" (of those who have consented-motivated-promoted) the term about what would be called the repeated failure for more than 40 years to ensure the EQUALITY of citizens before the LAW? These expressions reflect the seriousness and persistence of the prolonged failure to guarantee equality before the law.
In the books "Constitutional Law I" you can read "The CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS are a guarantee of the subjection of politics to the law, so that the ultimate legitimacy of the constitutional judge rests on what he does in the exercise of his jurisdiction: defend the will of the sovereign people from that of their representatives. The great value of JUDICIAL CONTROL OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY is that IT PRESERVES THE RIGHTS OF MINORITIES AGAINST THE MAJORITY PASSIONS OF THE MOMENT and that IT GUARANTEES THE RIGHTS OF THE MAJORITIES AGAINST THE INTERESTS OF POWERFUL OR MINORITIES. INFLUENCERS
They say that our 6 historical constitutions were "programmatic", that is, they were considered declarations of "ideals or intentions" but they did not obligate public powers to comply with their provisions. It is of interest to "weigh" because our current Constitution (1978) is not considered "programmatic" but rather "normative". "Supposedly" because the public powers are subject to its regulations with "binding" force or in the sense that the constitutional precepts They are directly applicable.... Do you believe it?
If we have to talk about a generic evil in any country or organization on our planet, it is necessary to refer to "KLEPTOCRACY" or "government of thieves". If we analyze the history of the last 2000 years, no empire is exempt. In the last century, after World War II, the formula of democracy has proliferated in most countries as a guarantee that the rulers are sovereign, that is, elected by the people. This formula has been supplemented by a code of coexistence called "CONSTITUTION" which includes self-control mechanisms and, when effective, ensures the concept of the "RULE OF LAW". Shall we look in the mirror?
The economic development of a country undoubtedly depends on how well its Judicial body works. In a very simple way we can say that justice is in charge of "the rules" being followed.Where are the rules of the game defined? if you doubt the Spanish constitution or also called Magna Carta. The transparency of this body and the rigor when it comes to regulating compliance with its doctrines determine its operation
It is worrying to observe how, in our journalistic media, it is reported that "justice" in other countries legitimizes injustices and violations of fundamental rights, simply because it is "No justice." We must not forget that the human condition, shared by all the inhabitants of this planet, groups us into what we could call "interest groups." Throughout history, we have witnessed how "the power" deceives "the people", using tricks and taking advantage of the submission and ease with which many people are manipulated. What is surprising, without a doubt, is that "the fear" of dissent by those in power is so "palpable." The question arises: what can happen to you when you disagree?
The example of the red line is often used as a separation of good and evil in environments: political, judicial, social. Undoubtedly, that of sports referees is usually the most controversial when it comes to assigning the goal (on lines 5cm thick), but in the case of a judge, can the opposite be interpreted as someone who breaks the law? Our judicial system considers the right to make mistakes in their work to apply the laws legitimate due to their human condition, which is questionable when more than 50 judges (supposedly independent) do it systematically when interpreting misappropriation crimes that is to say, with a conceptual base similar to 1+1=2.
The pleasure of entering a bakery is unquestionable, the smell tells us that we will be able to get something tasty, if we enter a perfumery the pleasure of smells is guaranteed. If we enter a library we anticipate what we are going to find: knowledge, learning things. If we go to a hospital the smell will be clean, we know in advance that they are going to do everything possible to cure us...... but... what happens when we enter a court? What do Spanish courts smell like? Does so-called Legal Security exist? That is to say, do we have the guarantee that our courts will respect our Constitution? Will their decisions comply with the laws?
Contrast the eagerness with which our magistrates arrogated to themselves the privileges of the aforamientos in 1985, with the difficulty of restoring Article 14 of the constitution today, 40 years later. If we look for the impediment in the media, there is naively talk of the complexity of modifying article 101.2 of the constitution, but it is omitted that they are elected officials and that some regional governments have already renounced them. It is accredited in jurisprudence the lack of independence of our judges especially when it comes to recognizing the crime of "a partner". Likewise, the decision to exempt millions in fines is taken by people who have the privilege of not being judged for it.