Any sufficiently ignorant traveler who has visited the Cathedral of Avila, upon leaving the monastery, may be surprised by the tomb of the Duke – as indicated by the inscription on the tombstone – which, however, due to its appearance and the dates it shows, gives the impression of an anachronism in this environment . Above him does not rise, as one might expect, a bulk of lying armor with a sword and shield, surrounded by an intricate inscription in Latin. You will have to bow to the ground to read the brief epitaph, which simply states: “Consent was possible.”

We could talk about who is buried there, a certain Adolfo Suarezincreasingly alien to the elementary imagination of recent generations due to its no presence net –a very modern and politically correct way of justifying ignorance; But now it is more important to pay attention to the laconic expression given, which, written where it is, could perhaps sound indirect.

Those who today deny the legitimacy and durability of the pact in which it was formed have shown themselves stubbornly unable to formulate an alternative proposal.

And the phrase in question takes on a special meaning if we look at the tense of the verb. A clear demonstration that agreement “was” possible is that we are celebrating nothing less than the 45th anniversary of the adoption of the Constitution, which, according to many, is the result of precisely this agreement. The best proof of this is that those who today deny the legitimacy and durability of the pact in which it crystallized are persistently unable to formulate an alternative proposal suitable for acceptance – as in 1978 – by a majority and in which we can also fit.all. On the contrary, this is the area in which, as Labordeta sang, often in this part we go nowhere.

The constitutional text, approved by the vast majority of this society that has recently emerged from a black-and-white state, demonstrates imbalance and insufficiency in the face of the unimaginable changes that this almost half-century has brought to us in every conceivable aspect. , not This should be of particular concern. American jurists have been engaged in an interesting debate for more than a century about whether their Constitution should be applied according to its strict literal meaning or whether it can be interpreted evolutionarily, and they have managed to amend it many times with an ease that is legally unthinkable and politically unfeasible for us today. To the extent that there remains significant consensus on its values ​​and principles, the problems of applying the Constitution open similar to Spanish are decided with some delicacy and good legal technique based on quality debate. The problem lies precisely in the survival of this basic consensus. In fear that this Constitution of Consent may change its nature, infected with the virus of our historical tragedy, into the complete opposite: into an object of discord. But it is not through passive or active rejection of those who do not openly share their values ​​that there is a risk that the model of democracy non-military what the Constitution itself enshrines (among others, STC 48/2003), presupposes and permits. No. The bad thing is that this is the stupidity of those who surprise us every day. from the inside demonstrating its healthy intention to respect, enforce and even strengthen Magna Carta…throwing them at each other’s heads. Still, it would be better to carefully review everything you read.

In any case, everyone sees their own part of reality. It turns out that according to the latest published report, in 2022, citizens of this country once again flooded the Constitutional Court with 8,528 requests for protection, which is 234 more than in the previous year, 2,000 more than in 2020, almost 1,000 more than in 2020. in 2019 and exactly 1610 more than in 2018. And since the reform of its Basic Law was carried out in 2007, it became possible to receive from supreme interpreter of the Constitution The substantive response to individual claims for the protection of fundamental rights has declined significantly. But beyond the numbers, any lawyer knows that there is virtually no judicial procedure that does not refer to the Constitution or discuss its application in a particular case. So, despite the noise that thunders at us from the public and published platforms, something seems to suggest that the number of those who continue to believe in the normative value of this imperfect Constitution is growing, perhaps somewhat aged due to endogenous and exogenous difficulties that prevent its renewal, and sometimes grossly manipulate and instrumentalize.

Many of them were born when the presence of a democratic Constitution at the center of our relationship, first of all, to power, but also to each other, was already perceived as something ordinary – and, therefore, also subject to a certain trivialization. In fact, it is the transversality of its principles, its capacity for capillary penetration into our everyday lives, that, paradoxically, explains the uncontrollable spiral of attempts to appropriate and even counterfeit its trademark. If we are accustomed to hear every day in the public theater hyperbolic proclamations of something and its opposites in the name and defense of the (same) Constitution, it is because its appeals rent. Maybe more than just sticking to your values.

Therefore, in spite of everything, the greatest merit of the present constitutional text is no longer due to its origin, the fruit of Spain, in which, although it is now sometimes denied or forgotten, consent was possible, but from legitimacy of implementation which is to demonstrate, despite all its wounds and ailments, the strength necessary to return differences to the right direction within the framework of democracy. This is the greatness of the Constitution in these turbulent days, which, have no doubt, includes the necessary instruments to successfully solve this problem. This is told to you with complete conviction (not to be confused with naivety) by one who has the privilege of coordinating a team of excellent lawyers, prosecutors without connections, slavery and fear, every day completely dedicated to the surgical use, sometimes complex, of these tools in search of solutions that the Constitution itself offers .

Of course, let no one be deceived: the results would be more satisfying if all of us, inside, outside or around politics, were willing to push a little more (or just a little) in the direction of harmony. You can accept the link.

_________

Pedro Crespo Barquero He is the chief prosecutor of the prosecutor’s office at the Constitutional Court.