The latest session of “Thursday Law at CUNEF Universidad” focuses on the tension between politics and justice

“Is justice under threat? Apropos of Manuel Marchena’s latest book” is the name of the most recent seminar in the cycle “Thursday Law at CUNEF Universidad”, held yesterday in the Auditorium of the Almansa Campus with discussants Manuel Marchena, Magistrate of the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court, LLD and CUNEF Universidad Professor, Antonio del Moral, Magistrate of the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court and LLD, and Julio Banacloche, Professor of Procedural Law and Vice-Rector for Academic Planning at Universidad Complutense de Madrid. The session was chaired by Jesús Zarzalejos, Professor of the Department of Law at CUNEF Universidad.

During his opening speech, Manuel Marchena explained that his book could have been published a century ago, since the threat to Justice is not a new occurrence, although lately “we’ve been witnessing unusual situations that we are taking for normal and which go well beyond the limits of the historical confrontation between Justice and political power”. In the magistrate’s opinion, judicial power “may be reviled, but it is also resilient,” as it is called to preserve impartiality in a context of recurring tensions between politics and justice. For his part, Magistrate Antonio del Moral added that “political power will always have an allergy to the judiciary.”

Along the same lines, Julio Banacloche stressed that the confrontation between the judiciary and political power “goes back to the very origins of the rule of law”, but warned that, right now, there is a more subtle threat, which consists of “turning Justice into just another public service, where only speed matters, without paying attention to quality or its role as a guarantor of rights”.

When discussing the duties of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, Marchena stressed that the independence of this body “does not depend on the Constitution, but on the will of those who lead it”, which is why “it cannot be handpicked by the Government”. Banacloche agreed that any changes in the criminal investigation model should be led by an in-depth reform of the Prosecutor’s Statute, to avoid “a hierarchical subordination that would be incompatible with the neutrality required by criminal investigations”.

People’s Juries and Europe

Another of the topics addressed was the public image of Justice and the role of popular juries. Marchena pointed out that, although 60% to 80% of citizens consider that justice is politicised, “their perception is based on barely five or ten high-profile cases. Every year, more than two and a half million criminal proceedings are held, and most of them evolve normally, with exemplary professionalism”. The belief that most trials with a popular jury end in convictions was also brought up. In this sense, Julio Banacloche pointed out that citizens “tend to trust the views of the prosecutor, whom they perceive as a technical and impartial figure.”

The end of the debate focused on Europe’s role as a guarantor of the rule of law. Zarzalejos mentioned recent reports issued by the European Commission on the General Council of the Judiciary and the standards of judicial independence. Antonio del Moral pointed out that the threat to justice “is not just about time, but also space” and mentioned cases in Poland, France and Israel as examples of the universal tension between political and judicial power.

Manuel Marchena concluded with an optimistic vision of the future of the judicial system and argued for recovering the spirit of institutional consensus. “Hopefully, there will come a time when the main political forces recover the spirit of the Transition, working to build a solid Justice based on the first article of the Constitution and the values of the rule of law,” remarked the Magistrate of the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court.