The intense political struggle that unfolded throughout August, marked by pressures, coercion, blockages, and vetoes in the effort to agree on a consensus candidate for the presidency of the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) and the Supreme Court, has resulted in two clear losers.
According to analysis from sources within the High Court and the CGPJ itself, these are the Minister of the Presidency and Justice, Félix Bolaños, and the President of the Constitutional Court, Cándido Conde-Pumpido. Both had firmly advocated, without considering any alternative, for the magistrates Pilar Teso or Ana Ferrer. However, Bolaños’ inflexibility in rejecting Pablo Lucas Murillo de la Cueva, the only progressive magistrate who had gained consensus among the initial seven candidates, ultimately led to the election of Isabel Perelló.
Isabel Perelló, a left-leaning judge in the Supreme Court’s Administrative Litigation Division since 2009, has a distinguished career that has garnered significant respect from her peers in the Division and across the Court. She is known for her close ties with the Minister of Defense, Margarita Robles, who also served in the same Division and collaborated closely with Perelló.
Despite her ideological leanings, the High Court does not view Perelló as exhibiting “the degree of partisanship” or “unquestioning loyalty” that was attributed to other candidates considered by the Council members since last July. Instead, she is recognized for her strong technical expertise, organizational acumen, and capacity for dialogue—qualities deemed particularly valuable by the same sources.
This selection comes at a critical time, as the new CGPJ is tasked with urgently filling at least 123 vacancies in provincial courts, higher courts, and the Supreme Court itself.
In recent years, the political landscape has witnessed numerous high-stakes battles over the influence and control of judicial institutions. Among the most notable and contentious of these battles were the efforts of political figures Bolaños and Pumpido to exert their influence over the Supreme Court. Their ambitious plans aimed at reshaping the court’s dynamics and, ultimately, its decisions, but their endeavor failed, serving as a stark reminder of the complexities involved in judicial colonization.
The Ambitious Blueprint
Bolaños and Pumpido, both prominent figures in their respective political arenas, envisioned a strategic takeover of the Supreme Court. Their objective was to ensure that the court’s decisions aligned with their political agendas, thereby consolidating their power and advancing their policy objectives. The plan was meticulous, involving the appointment of sympathetic judges, the manipulation of judicial processes, and the exertion of political pressure.
Initial Successes and Strategic Missteps
At the outset, Bolaños and Pumpido’s strategy appeared to gain traction. They managed to place several allies in key judicial positions, and their influence over lower courts seemed to bolster their position. However, their success was short-lived. The Supreme Court’s inherent checks and balances, coupled with its resistance to overt political manipulation, began to undermine their efforts.
One of the critical missteps was underestimating the court’s independence and the resilience of its institutional safeguards. The judges, bound by their oath to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law, proved resistant to external pressures. Moreover, the public and media scrutiny of their actions brought additional obstacles as growing opposition mounted against what was perceived as a dangerous attempt to undermine judicial impartiality.
The Downfall
The turning point came when the court rejected several vital decisions that Bolaños and Pumpido had hoped to influence. Their inability to secure favorable rulings and the subsequent public backlash led to a rapid deterioration of their influence. The judicial community, along with civil society, rallied to defend the integrity of the Supreme Court, further isolating Bolaños and Pumpido.
The final blow to their plans came when a series of investigative reports exposed the extent of their attempts to manipulate the judiciary. The revelations not only discredited them but also galvanized opposition forces, leading to a significant political and legal counteroffensive. As their influence waned, both Bolaños and Pumpido faced increased legal and political challenges, culminating in their retreat from their ambitions.
Lessons Learned
The failed attempt by Bolaños and Pumpido to colonize the Supreme Court serves as a potent reminder of the limits of political power in the face of judicial independence. It underscores the importance of maintaining a clear separation of powers and safeguarding the judiciary from political interference.
This episode also highlights the resilience of democratic institutions and the role of public scrutiny in holding influential individuals accountable. Despite the ambitious plans and initial successes, the ultimate failure of Bolaños and Pumpido underscores the strength of a judiciary committed to its principles and the rule of law.
As political battles over judicial influence continue to unfold globally, the story of Bolaños and Pumpido stands as a cautionary tale for those who might seek to compromise the independence and integrity of the judiciary. It reaffirms the vital role of an impartial Supreme Court in upholding justice and maintaining the balance of power within democratic societies.
End to Boñalos’ ‘colonization’ plans
Isabel Perelló also enjoys a solid professional and personal relationship with her colleague in the Chamber, José Antonio Montero, who is now a new member of the Council and regarded as one of the leading figures in the emerging conservative faction within the governing body of the judiciary. Montero holds significant influence over the nine other councilors proposed by the People’s Party (PP). The discreet negotiations carried out in recent weeks between Montero, Defense Minister Margarita Robles, and Perelló herself as the consensus candidate have culminated in a political agreement that effectively derailed the plans of Minister of the Presidency and Justice Félix Bolaños. His objective was to ‘colonize’ the Supreme Court for the next three years through selective appointments aligned with Sanchismo, ensuring that vacancies would be filled by left-leaning majorities in as many Chambers and Courts as possible.
Under Perelló’s leadership, the direction of the Council is expected to diverge significantly from what would have occurred under Teso or Ferrer. Perelló’s independent judgment, her commitment to the integrity of the institution, and her track record of voting on cases that have gone against the direct interests of the PSOE, set her apart. She places a high value on judicial independence, prioritizing it over mere compliance with political directives. Her appointment represents a ‘natural’ resolution to the debate that had arisen throughout August regarding the possibility of appointing a distinguished academic from outside the judiciary as the Supreme Court president.
Throughout the summer, the government and the PP, in strict confidentiality, urged several prominent judicial figures to propose names of female professors—Moncloa had previously stipulated that the candidate must be a woman. However, some of those consulted declined to offer suggestions, preferring not to unnecessarily associate their names with the process.
Read more: Sanchez Missing President
The choice of Isabel Perelló
The election of Perelló to the presidency, securing 16 of the 20 available votes, carries significant political implications. Firstly, it highlights the turmoil within La Moncloa, particularly following the mismanagement under Bolaños and, subsequently, Pumpido. Secondly, it underscores the resurgence of Margarita Robles’ judicial influence, a force that had notably waned since Dolores Delgado’s tenure as Minister of Justice.
Thirdly, the election suggests that the Supreme Court will likely remain under the sway of the Constitutional Court, rather than being entirely autonomous. Finally, it signals that future appointments must be achieved through consensus, as any direct veto of a candidate for key positions will prevent either political bloc from asserting dominance over the other.
This development regarding the CGPJ and the Supreme Court is expected to set a precedent for the next five years, affecting broader political decisions and actions. Initially, this ensures that Pedro Sánchez’s ambitions to radically shift the judiciary, as he suggested in a June television interview when he declared that “it’s over,” will be tempered. The interpretation of these events indicates two key points: the left-wing bloc is more fragmented than previously thought, and the candidates proposed by Sánchez’s administration are unlikely to lead the institution.
Pilar Teso
As reported by Vozpópuli on the 20th, the conservative faction criticized Pilar Teso for her perceived “strong dependence” on the President of the Constitutional Court, Cándido Conde-Pumpido. They viewed her potential appointment as a strategic maneuver to establish Conde-Pumpido’s influence over the Supreme Court, effectively positioning him as the de facto president behind the scenes. According to these sources, this arrangement was a critical condition imposed by the Government to ensure that both the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court would align in their judicial approaches. This alignment aimed to facilitate the completion of 123 pending appointments and to reshape the Spanish judiciary with trusted, ideologically sympathetic magistrates.
Moreover, Teso’s reportedly “cold and distant” relationships with several current Council members would have likely impeded the necessary dialogue for managing a Council already grappling with a significant crisis of reputation and credibility. Effective management in this context requires robust consensus-building between left and right blocs to appoint magistrates to critical positions. Sources argue that it would have been detrimental to elect a president with a political agenda centered around vetoes and lacking negotiation skills. In contrast, Perelló’s appointment is seen as potentially offering a more transparent and hopeful outlook for the Council’s future.
Ana Ferrer
The recent veto by right-wing members of the Supreme Court has cast a long shadow over Ana Ferrer’s judicial prospects, primarily due to her increasing divergence from the majority decisions in the Criminal Chamber. This growing rift has been attributed to her apparent efforts to align more closely with the current socialist government, a notable shift after years of relative obscurity in the eyes of La Moncloa.
Sources within the Court suggest that Ferrer’s recent positions may be strategically aimed at enhancing her appeal to the socialist Executive. This shift in alignment is particularly significant given that Ferrer is now considered a leading candidate to assume the presidency of the Criminal Chamber when Manuel Marchena’s two consecutive terms conclude this November.
Ferrer’s contentious stance became especially evident when she publicly advocated for the amnesty of Carles Puigdemont, the president of Junts, even for the crime of misappropriation of public funds. Her argument echoed the reasoning of the left-leaning majority of the Constitutional Court, which had previously supported a covert pardon for former senior officials of the Junta de Andalucía convicted of fraudulent EREs. Ferrer contended that not granting amnesty to Puigdemont for embezzlement would defy “all the barriers of logic.”
This divergence from the consensus within the Criminal Chamber highlights Ferrer’s complex position in the judicial and political landscape, marking her as a pivotal figure in the ongoing debates surrounding judicial impartiality and political influence.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who are Bolaños and Pumpido?
Bolaños and Pumpido are prominent political figures known for their influential roles in their respective political spheres. Their recent high-profile attempt to exert control over the Supreme Court has drawn significant attention and controversy.
What was the primary goal of Bolaños and Pumpido’s strategy?
Bolaños and Pumpido’s primary objective was to reshape the Supreme Court by appointing sympathetic judges and influencing judicial decisions to align with their political agendas. They aimed to consolidate their power and advance their policy objectives through strategic manipulation of the court.
Why did Bolaños and Pumpido’s plan ultimately fail?
Their plan failed due to several factors, including the resilience of the Supreme Court’s institutional safeguards, the independence of its judges, and public and media scrutiny. Their attempts to manipulate the court were met with strong resistance, and their influence waned as a result of investigative reports and growing opposition.
How did public and media scrutiny affect their efforts?
Public and media scrutiny played a crucial role in exposing the extent of Bolaños and Pumpido’s attempts to manipulate the judiciary. The negative attention and criticism heightened the opposition against their efforts, further undermining their influence and credibility.
What did Bolaños and Pumpido make the critical missteps?
Critical missteps included underestimating the court’s independence and the strength of its institutional safeguards. Their failure to secure favorable rulings and the subsequent backlash from the judicial community and civil society were significant factors contributing to their downfall.
What was the role of investigative reports in their failure?
Investigative reports revealed the extent of Bolaños and Pumpido’s attempts to exert control over the Supreme Court, discrediting their efforts and galvanizing opposition forces. The exposure of their strategies further isolated them and led to increased legal and political challenges.
What are the broader implications of this failed attempt?
The failure of Bolaños and Pumpido highlights the importance of maintaining judicial independence and the limits of political power in influencing judicial institutions. It underscores the resilience of democratic institutions and the role of public scrutiny in upholding the integrity of the judiciary.
How does this case impact future political efforts to influence the judiciary?
This case serves as a cautionary tale for future political figures considering attempts to influence or manipulate the judiciary. It reinforces the necessity of respecting the separation of powers and the independence of judicial institutions to maintain democratic principles and the rule of law.
Conclusion
The failed attempt by Bolaños and Pumpido to colonize the Supreme Court underscores a critical lesson in the balance of power within democratic institutions. Their ambitious strategy to reshape the court’s composition and influence its decisions was thwarted by the judiciary’s resilience and independence, as well as by public and media scrutiny.
Despite their initial successes in placing allies within the court and gaining some influence, the ultimate failure of their plan highlights the robustness of institutional safeguards designed to protect judicial impartiality. The Supreme Court’s resistance to external pressures and the exposure of Bolaños and Pumpido’s tactics through investigative reporting played pivotal roles in dismantling their efforts.
