Last Thursday, the BOE published a Royal Decree regarding the “restructuring & rdquor; of the King’s House, and “restructuring” may lead to some misunderstanding. The word is part of the catalog of euphemisms who try to soften harsh realities. For the same reason that there is talk of “aid & rdquor; and “recession” not to say “rescue” or “negative growth”, “restructuring” is sometimes used to avoid mentioning the word “cuts.” In this case, however, the Royal Decree does not provide for any cuts in the King’s House. In fact, some aspects of their organization are reorganized, which continues to be the one configured by Royal Decree 434/1988: a support body for the monarch in his functions as head of state. If it has caught the attention of the press, it has been because of the emphasis that has been given to increasing transparency. Thus, the publicity of the contractual activity of the House of the King and the remuneration of the members of the Royal Family is imposed. In addition, it is established an annual audit by the Court of Auditors, the result of which must be published on the Casa del Rey website.
These measures are positive to the extent that the monarchy appears subject to greater control; at least, the one derived from advertising. That can prevent some behaviors such as those that have tainted the trajectory of Juan Carlos I. However, adopting them through a royal decree It seems to me a debatable option. Formally it is correct, since it is a rule of the same rank as the one it modifies: Royal Decree 434/1988 already mentioned. But a royal decree avoids the parliamentary discussion of regulations with the force of law, and reinforces the impression that you want to avoid any public discussion in which the existence of the monarchy can be called into question. It must be remembered that article 57.5 of the Constitution establishes that an organic law will regulate the succession to the Crown, and that law still does not exist. The organic law of 2014 was limited to making effective the succession of don Juan Carlos, after his abdication, but it cannot be considered a general norm like the one demanded by the aforementioned constitutional article. It would also be convenient, as some expert has claimed, a law on the Crown. That law could set, beyond constitutional customs, important issues such as the scope of the autonomy of the head of state in his public statements. Y would not be an inappropriate rule, when the main State institutions, which appear in the Constitution, have their own organic law.
Related news
In any case, we must not lose sight the problem of lack of legitimacy that affects the monarchy for an important part of the citizenry. For this reason, it is important to integrate the Crown more into the regulatory framework of our legal system, with the corresponding laws. Between the constitutional norms and the decrees are the laws. It is true that in its elaboration, harsh criticism of the monarchical institution can be expressed in parliament. It is understood that It’s hard to find the right moment but such legislation is necessary. Failure to address its processing can be interpreted as a lack of arguments to defend the parliamentary monarchy. And, with this lack of initiative, the defenders of the institution do him a disservice.
All these issues, however, are secondary to the underlying problem: the interpretation given to the inviolability of the King. The Constitution, in article 56.3, says that “the person & rdquor; del Rey “is inviolable and is not subject to liability & rdquor ;. When it is interpreted that you should not respond for possible criminal behavior, nor face any civil lawsuit, the inviolability of the King can lead to his impunity. It is said that this is a prerogative of all heads of state, but it is forgotten that, in the republics, these privileges are temporary. I think that inviolability could be interpreted to refer to the person of the King when he acts as such, but not to the private citizen. The privileges incompatible with equality before the law must be interpreted restrictively. If it does not go this way, the transparency measures may fall short.