The shock and blockade maneuvers allow the right to regain control of the Judiciary

After almost three decades of conservative presidents in the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ), the renewal agreed in the summer of 2024 with a supposed progressive majority encouraged the idea of ​​a change of course in the governing body of the judges. A year later, however, the judicial right continues to gain ground in the most important institution of the third branch of the State. To the fiasco of an appointment policy that has consolidated conservative dominance in the judicial leadership; A distribution of power is now added that is clearly favorable to the members chosen at the initiative of the Popular Party.

President Isabel Perelló, who was attributed a progressive sensibility when she was appointed; and one of the members chosen at the initiative of Sumar, Carlos Hugo Preciado, voted this week together with the conservative group for a new configuration of the commissions in which the work of the body is organized. With the new distribution, nine of the eleven have a conservative majority. The member Carlos Hugo Preciado maintains his position in the Permanente, the hard core where many important decisions are made.

The progressives went to the plenary session with a proposal that was eventually withdrawn. There was not even a vote. They proposed that this bloc – which until now was in a minority in the Permanent Party – become a majority: four progressive members and three conservatives. They also proposed the entry of the member José María Fernández Seijo, who has served as shadow leader of the progressive group. After the plenary session, Fernández Seijo threatened to resign, although his blockmates are mobilizing for him to reconsider.

The new distribution maintains a correlation of forces favorable to the conservatives and in which the positioning of President Perelló will be key, who has the casting vote in the event of a tie. Recently, the president’s vote has allowed the opening of disciplinary files against several judges for their outbursts against politicians, just as the progressives intended. But Perelló has also raised his profile in other important matters. This is the case of the proposals on the system of election of members or the arduous negotiations for the presidencies of the most sensitive chambers of the Supreme Court. The candidates supported by the right ended up being appointed.

Behind the backs of the progressives

Members of both groups confirm that the finally agreed distribution was negotiated behind the backs of the progressives, which has raised tension to levels not seen during this mandate. In a harsh statement, eight members chosen at the initiative of the PSOE and another from Sumar accused President Perelló of having “abruptly and deliberately” imposed a change in rules that “excludes” them from the new distribution of power.

Preciado, for his part, defends that the matter is being treated with “a lot of drama” and affirms “certain dysfunctions have been corrected and independent progressive profiles have been chosen,” referring to himself. This Friday, members of her association, Judges for Democracy, asked her for explanations at their annual congress.

Different sources report last Thursday’s plenary session as a “very tense” meeting, in which the institutional framework was maintained, but where the enormous discomfort of the majority of progressive members was evident. The situation puts the focus on Perelló, who has lost the support of some of the members who raised her to the presidency. And it also shows the seams of the tight distribution of members agreed between the Government and the PP after five years of blockade.

Despite a left-wing parliamentary majority, the pact was that there would be ten progressive and ten conservative members. Both parties agreed that, for the first time in history, they would not name the person who was going to lead the institution. Although they did agree that the twenty members had to agree on the basis of three conditions: that she be a woman, progressive and a Supreme Court judge.

The conservative sector threatened to breach the fine print of that pact between the parties. Their strategy was first of all to try to impose Judge Pablo Lucas, whose “brilliant” resume they defended; and, later, Carmen Lamela, whom they promoted after accepting that the position should be in the hands of a woman and to whom they tried to attribute a progressive sensitivity that was difficult to support in her career as a magistrate.

For weeks, the division between the two blocs seemed insurmountable. Perelló was never among the preferred names of the members of the judicial left. They decided to promote the candidacies of the Supreme Court justices Pilar Teso and Ana Ferrer. Although they are two renowned jurists, their profiles were flatly rejected by the conservative members, whose support was essential to carry out the appointment and who insisted on imposing on their candidates.

After a impasse which lasted weeks, new profiles began to be searched. The first step was taken by the conservative member José Antonio Montero, who proposed the name of Perelló to Carlos Hugo Preciado. The member proposed by Sumar Inés Herreros, now facing Preciado, supported the operation. Other progressive members joined later.

A first transfer had been completed that was repeated in other subsequent episodes. For example, with the election of the presidencies of the most sensitive chambers of the Supreme Court: Teso and Ferrer were once again vetoed by the conservatives, who managed to impose their candidates. At that moment Perelló also stood in profile. He voted blank on several occasions. And Teso and Ferrer ended up resigning, which paved the way for their roommates. The progressives compromised and ended up supporting the majority of the candidates preferred by the conservative bloc.

Recurring transfers

The president also did not take sides on another of the controversial issues of the mandate: the obligation to make a report on the system for electing the members of the body. Finally, a single report with two differentiated proposals was unanimously approved: one aimed at maintaining the essence of the current model, in which the Cortes elect from a closed list determined by the judges, defended by the progressive sector; and another that supports that the judicial members be elected directly by the judges, which is the one maintained by the councilors elected at the proposal of the PP.

Last May, Perelló also voted alongside Preciado and the conservative group for the election of three technical positions. It was the first scene of fracture in the progressive bloc that had already been ruminating for months within the body, but which had not been clearly evident. The scenario has now changed, since the eight members chosen at the initiative of the PSOE and the one chosen at the proposal of Sumar give enormous gravity to what happened this week.

They hold Perelló directly responsible for ending “a climate of internal trust unprecedented in previous stages” and for encouraging a distribution that “responds more to a logic of exclusion than to institutional criteria.” And they warn of “consequences” regarding appointments. “I don’t know if the president is aware, but we will have to start thinking that we have to make our policies. Unanimity is over,” says a member chosen at the initiative of the PSOE. “The situation is unfortunate for what was expected from a progressive Council,” says another member of this group.

So far, the judicial right has emerged victorious in appointment politics. The Professional Association of the Judiciary (APM), conservative and the majority in the career, has accounted for almost half of the promotions to the Supreme Court, which are especially relevant because they are maintained until retirement. Appointments require 13 votes and the vast majority have been achieved by unanimity or very comfortable majorities after agreements between both blocs. It is negotiated in a commission with representatives of both groups.

Nobody foresees more “leaks” that would make the progressives lose their blocking majority in key decisions. This is the case of appointments, which require the aforementioned 13 votes. But there are many other decisions for which an absolute majority is sufficient, such as the appointment of technical positions or the preparation of reports on Government laws. And there the same majority that has decided on the new organization of the body could operate.

While the members of the progressive bloc try to recover from the “shock” that came with Thursday’s plenary session and avoid the resignation of one of their members, in the conservative bloc the tranquility seems total. “It is true that the commissions have been established without them [la mayoría de vocales progresistas]but their presence has been respected. After a few days with little tension, this will continue working as always,” concedes a member chosen at the time at the initiative of the PP.