The State Attorney’s Office asks that the conservative Macías be removed from the appeals against the amnesty in the Constitutional Court

The State Attorney’s Office has asked the Constitutional Court to remove conservative judge José María Macías from deliberations related to the amnesty law, which he has publicly opposed over the past year, according to the document submitted by the Court. Ser chain and to which elDiario.es has had access. The document considers that Macías is not impartial enough to participate in these decisions. The reason for the recusal focuses on the report that he signed in March 2024, when he was a member of the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ), and which considered that the law of criminal oblivion of the procés was unconstitutional.

According to the State Attorney’s Office, the “conclusions” of this report prove that Macías, the last judge to join the plenary session at the initiative of the PP, had “extensive knowledge” of the litigation when he held public office and formed “criteria” together with the rest of the members who then made up the governing body of the judges “to the detriment of due impartiality.”

The State Attorney’s Office has presented this recusal against Macías in the first matter related to the amnesty that it has had to study: the question of unconstitutionality presented by the Criminal Division of the Supreme Court. Its arguments are, however, applicable to the 20 challenges that have been presented against the law, including by the PP itself, an appeal of which Macías is the rapporteur.

During his time as a member of the CGPJ, Macías led a group of members who actively opposed, among other government measures, this amnesty law, forcing the issuance of a contrary report that had not been requested from them in the first place.

The State Attorney’s Office’s recusal joins the one presented last week by the Public Prosecutor’s Office. The Public Prosecutor’s Office also considers that he cannot be the rapporteur of the appeal of the Popular Party because during his time as a member of the CGPJ he had “direct participation” in “official actions” of the Council against the amnesty, such as the aforementioned report, which for the Public Prosecutor’s Office represents “an extensive, reasoned, reiterated, detailed and categorical” assessment of the law.