The Popular Group will defend this Tuesday to the Plenary of Congress its proposal for an Organic Law for the Protection of Health and Fundamental Rights and Freedoms that articulates a legal ‘plan B’ -in the words of Pablo Casado’s party- through ordinary legislation to avoid having to resort to the exceptional measure of the state of alarm if the pandemic persists.
The leader of the PP, Pablo Casado, has been defending this legal plan for months as an alternative measure to the state of alarm to give security and certainty to the autonomous communities and believes that it could be approved in a couple of months. “I hope that it is supported by the Socialist Party, as the president himself, the vice president and the minister of Justice promised,” he told the Executive Committee of his party last week.
The spokesperson for the Popular Group in Congress, Cuca Gamarra, he has already begun to contact some parliamentary groups to obtain support and trusts that the PSOE at least does not prevent the processing of the initiative. However, both the PSOE and United We Can have preferred not to advance the meaning of their vote.
Time to abandon the “path of exception”
In the text, which is signed by the previous party spokesperson, Cayetana Álvarez de Toledo, the PP assures that by resorting to the “maximum exceptionality” In Article 116 of the Constitution, the Government “confined the Spanish and curtailed their basic rights of citizens, such as free movement, assembly, freedom of establishment, freedom of worship and others.”
The PP stresses that it is time to abandon “the path of exception” from the state of alarm -extended up to six times- and prepare a legal response that allows the joint protection of the rights and freedoms of citizens, “without prejudice to the fact that the State is also in charge of ensuring their health,” especially when the health crisis has not ended, the virus has not been defeated, nor has a vaccine yet been found.
“Faced with these imminent or future risks, it is essential to equip ourselves with a legal instrument as soon as possible, which allows, from legal certainty, institutional normality, and regulatory validity, to face this type of situation without implying or waiving the constitutional rights, or political negotiations that distort the sole purpose in these situations, “says the PP in its proposal.
The PP proposes in its initiative to modify the third article of Organic Law 3/1986, of April 14, on special measures in public health, so that the health authority may, to control communicable diseases, carry out actions general preventive measures and adopt measures for the control of the sick, of the people who are or have been in contact with them and the immediate environment.
Those measures, as it continues, will include “the obligatory submission of suspected persons to public health observation; submission to quarantine or apply other sanitary measures for suspected persons; isolation and treatment, when appropriate, of the affected persons, as well as the location of those who have been in contact with suspected or affected persons “.
In addition, the health authority may “control or limit the entrances and exits of the affected or threatened area and control or limit movement within said area, which may affect the right to free movement and wandering on public roads, as well as the right of meeting that could be conditioned in its exercise both in certain places, as in the number of people “. As he adds, all measures “shall be taken in accordance with the principles of necessity, suitability and proportionality.”
Be able to make restrictions
In the same initiative, the PP raises the reform of Law 29/1998, of July 13, regulating the Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction so that the contentious-administrative courts authorize or ratify the measures that the health authorities consider “urgent and necessary for public health and imply deprivation of liberty or another fundamental right.”
According to the PP, the requirement for judicial ratification of the administrative act in cases of deprivation of liberty or forced medical treatment (quarantine rules or involuntary medical procedure) is “reasonable.” However, he believes that the restriction “would be possible to carry it out by means of a governmental act that would weigh the circumstances of proportionality, suitability and necessity, without prejudice to its subsequent judicial control.”
Digsmak is a news publisher with over 12 years of reporting experiance; and have published in many industry leading publications and news sites.