The calendar established on October 6th last year, 2022, by the mixed, multiparty, Spanish Congress main body, the Board of the Congress, might be called just as well the Board of the Parliament I guess, just attains to it, to process (Spanish) “General State Budget” to be applied this year, 2023, is this one:
“Finance Bills,” that’s the term employed everywhere in the English translation of the Congress Regulations the Congress provides in its website, what I’m calling the “General State Budget,” should be considered, studied and approved, according to the Congress Regulations (CR everywhere in this post), the Congress “standing orders,” (that’s how they are called in the English translation) its code for acting, following what I’d translate as a/the “common,” or “standard” “legislative procedure,” and that translation calls a/the “ordinary legislative procedure.” Can’t track its origins. There’s an article in the English Wikipedia using the same words “ordinary legislative procedure” (paragraph 12), but the procedure it mentions is different. I’ll keep calling it that way, all along this entry, any way.
“Ordinary legislative procedure” is detailed in (CR) Arts. 109 – 123.
(CR) Art. 133.1 Remarks: “Ordinary legislative procedure applies, except as provided in this Section, to examination and passage of the Finance Bill (i.e. General State Budget).
“This Section” refers to articles 133 – 135 in DIVISION 2 of CHAPTER THREE (“Special Rules of legislature procedures”) of these Congress Regulations: “Finance Bill,” (“General State Budget”).
It is made up of Arts. 133-135, and does not add anything significant. Though Art. 134 is a stumbling block, as we’ll see.
Ordinary legislative procedure (i) : (CR) Arts. 109 – 111: “Amendments”: submission and types.
– According to Art. 109, at the start of “ordinary legislative procedure,” the Government presents a bill to the Board of the Parliament and the Board orders to publish it, to open a period for the submission of amendments and to send it to the proper Commission.
– According to (CR) Art. 46 the Budget Commission is “a standing Commission,” pertaining to the organization chart of the Congress.
– (CR) Art. 110.1 details that, once the bill has been published, Deputies and Parliamentary Groups have a period of 15 days to present amendments by means of written statement addressed to the Board in charge of the Commission.
– (CR) Art 110 2. explains that amendments can be of two types: amendments relating to the entire bill, the text as a whole, and amendments relating to articles.
– According (CR) 110.3, “Amendments to the entire bill” reject the “timeliness, the “foundation” or the “bias” of the bill and request the return of it to the Government, or propose a complete alternative text; only parliamentary groups can submit them.
– Amendments to articles ((CR) 112.4) may work by deletion, modification o addition. In the last two cases they must include the specific wording proposed.
– (CR) Art. 111 (3 sections) deals with a third type of amendments, a type involving either “an increase in budgetary appropriations” or “a reduction in budgetary revenue” and shows how they should be processed.
Ordinary legislative procedure (ii): (CR) Art. 112: the decision about “amendments to the entire bill” will be taken by means of a “debate on the entire bill,” including discussion and voting, held in a plenary session of the parliament.
According to the “ordinary legislative procedure,” “amendments to the entire bill” are processed first than “amendments to articles.”
The content of (CR) Art. 112, explaining how these amendments (“to the entire bill”) should be dealt with is this one:
– (CR) Art. 112.1 notes that, once they have been submitted, in that 15-day term, the President of the (Budget) Commission will forward to the President of the Parliament those that have been presented, if any, so that the President of the Parliament can include them in the agenda of the plenary session of the Parliament in which they should be discussed. Determining the date of that plenary session will be up to the President of Congress, surely. Maybe there is a small gap, a blank space in the regulation, or an ellipsis, between the “agenda” and the “date” of the plenary session.
– (CR) 112.2 points out: “The “debate about the entire bill,” will take place according to the provisions of this (Congress) Regulations for those of this nature, although each of the amendments presented may give rise to a turn in favor and another against.”
– (CR) 112.3. says that, after the deliberation is over ((CR) 112.2?), there will be a vote (CR regulate voting in Arts. 78 – 89). If the votes in the plenary session of the Parliament support an amendment to the entire bill of the type requesting the return of the Project, the Project will be rejected. If they do not endorse it, the project will be sent to the Commission, so that it can continue to be processed (112.4). If what is approved is an amendment to the entire bill of the type proposing an alternative text, that will be communicated to the Commission, will be published in the BOCG, General Courts Official Gazette, and a period of presentation of amendments will be opened that should only refer to articles (112.5).
The Board of the Parliament “processing schedule” for 2023 General State Budget I post the screenshot above neglects this entire sequence. Successively sets (sections 1.4 and 1.5) two deadlines, the first one, fifteen days after the bill is presented to the Board of the Parliament, for the submission of “amendments to the entire bill”; and a second ond, one week later, to submit amendments to articles.” I do not mean this, anyway.
ii.i) A word on (CR) Art. 112.2.
I copy and paste (CR) Art. 112.2 text again:
“The “debate about the entire bill,” will take place according to the provisions of this (Congress) Regulations for those of this nature, although each of the amendments presented may give rise to a turn in favor and another against.”
DIVISIÓN 2 ((CR) Arts. 133 – 135) dealing, as we’ve seen, with “General State Budget” in CHAPTER THREE ” of Congress Regulations (“Special rules of legislative procedure”), rule ((CR) Art. 134.1, that “the debate on the entire bill,” on the Finance Bill, General State Budget, will take place in a plenary session of the parliament. In it the global amounts stated in the budget will be fixed. And, after this debate, the project will be immediately sent to the Committee on Budgets.”
I think this text imposes an “added” condition, to the debate on the entire bill (CR) Art. 112 mentions, an “added condition” in case the debate is held about General State Budget.
Ordinary legislative procedure (iii) (CR) Arts.113 – 116): The processing of amendments to articles, (first part: initial steps).
The further processing in the Budget Commision (CR) Art. 112.4 refers to in its end develops as follows:
– First ((CR) Art. 113.1) the Commission will appoint within it one or several “rapporteurs” so that, in view of the text of the bill and of the amendments to articles, they draft a “report” within a period of 15 days, extendable (113.2) if the complexity of the text requires it. What’s the text? Which amends to articles have been submitted?
– Then ((CR) Art. 114.1), once this report “by the subcommittee” has been concluded (it’s reflected without much rigor, in section 1.8 of the “processing schedule” approved by the Board of Parliament for 2023 budgets, see the screenshot at the top of the entry, after meeting the appointed Spokesmen of all Parliamentary Groups: (1.8) “report of the subcommittee”), for writing it a term of two weeks is fixed after the deadline for reception of anmendments to articles ends, a debate inside the Commission will start which will be carried out “article by article” and in which the “amendants” of the articles and the members of the Commission may hold the floor. (CR) Art. 115 establishes that the times for discussing each article, the time each one of the parts will have to express its views and the total time of the process, can be “settled” by the President of the Commission in agreement with the Board of the Commission.
Finally, according to (CR) Art. 116, the verdict (the final decision) of the Commission on this debate held inside of it, between “amendants” and “members,” signed by the President and by one of the Secretaries, will be sent to the President of the Parliament to continue with the processing. (This verdict of the Commission is referred to in point 1.9 of the “processing schedule” for 2023 budgets, setting it for November 19th, 8 days after the “report” by the subcommitee” is made. In other words, the debate inside the Commission would last a week).
(iii.i) A problem with timing and contents.
a)
– 2023 General State Budgets were submitted to the Board of the Parliament on October 6th and were published on the BOCG (the General Courts Official Gazette) on October 8th.
– The deadline for submitting amendments to the entire bill ends two weeks later, on October 21st.
The amendments to the entire bill on 2023 Budget are not long, 95 pages or 65 pages depending of if you chose the text presented to the Board of the Budget Commission or the text as was published in the BOCG. They are all dated the same day or the day before the deadline ends. The text of the bill they amend, 2023 General State Budgets , exceeds 850 pages. Might be these amendments to the entire bill weren’t drafted within the two-week period signaled in the “schedule,” maybe the bill was well known before being officially published. Or maybe that, as this type of amendments just address “the timiliness,” “the foundation” of “the aim” of the bill, it was not so difficult to draft them in a couple of weeks. This is not important, either.
b)
– The deadline for the submission of amendments to articles ends on October 28th, a week later.
Here things are more serious because the amendments to the articles of 2023 General State Budget the Spanish Congress of deputies, shares in its website and were probably published in the BOCG (the the General Courts Official Gazette) on November 8th, 2022 consist of 4003 pages.
The Congress of the deputies website provides a few indexes:
Don’t know if results match. I think someone should ask them. It’s common in underdeveloped countries to have just “online” Governments. On the other hand, in Spain, as far as can assess it, it’s a common conduct in public servers, just to increase confusion, in order to make the havoc more evident, in order someone other might realize it and take the chance to denounce it. A weird logic.
c)
– The debate on the entire bill is scheduled for October 26th and October 27th.
And, finally here, under (iii) too, “a problem with timing and content,” “a tangle of timing and contents,” concerning again to amendments on articles, if we trust the “processing schedule” agreed on by the Board of the Parliament and the Board of Spokesmen
d)
– the “report of the subcommitee,” comparing the text of the bill, the General State Budgets (850 pages) and the amendments to articles (maybe 4003 pages, five times the text they allegedly amend) should be available by by November 11th.
– and the “verdict of the Commission” on November 19th, a week later.
The link in the Congress website suggests this “report of the subcommittee” was published in the BOCG (the “General Courts Official Gazette”) on November 15th , 2022. It should be made, I remind it ((CR) Art. 113.1) in view of the text (of the bill) and the amendments to articles. The deadline for submitting “amendments to articles” ended in October 28th. So this “report” should have been made in those two weeks the “processing schedule” sets for it.
The “verdict” of the Commission (584 pages) is recorded in the BOCG of November 21st 2022.
Between the “report of the subcommitee” (“until” November 11th) and this “verdict” (“until” November 19th), (publication dates are three or a couple of days later) a “debate inside the Commission,” “article by article,” should have been carried out (the “verdict” is the final decision of the Commision about it): see (CR) Art. 114.1 above. A “debate inside the Commission in which the “amendants” of the articles and the members of the Commision might have hold the floor. Don’t know it it was held. Don’t know if in the term of a week it was possible.
iii. ii. Conclusion.
I think everything here is fake.
On June 14th 2006, I registered in the Political Parties Registry of the Spanish Ministry of Interior a “soberanist” Galician party I called UDNG.
In 1.2 (“PURPOSES”) at the end of section 2) I wrote:
“UDNG also considers it very likely that, even within its own framework, a good part of the political and administrative management in Galicia and the Spanish State is deficient, that is, not only is it inserted, due to a prolonged neglect in an inadequate legal and regulatory framework, but also gives up applying many of the appropriate rules and laws that should regulate it.
Regarding this, UDNG believes that a State is contained in its laws and, consequently, there must be an effort to ensure that these are adequate, are integrated into an adequate system and are drafted with clarity, so that the creation of a stable legislative corpus, able to effectively regulate political, social and economic activity in all its orders, is possible
UDNG would advocate, even, for an analysis and a judicious review of everything legislated up to the present, and the creation of devices that make possible the correction of situations that do not seem to adapt to these standards. It would also consider it a priority to change the Regulations of the Galician Parliament and other institutions.”
A regional newspaper “El Progreso”from Lugo, concisely concisely collected in September 2008 the only intervention before the media I managed to organize:
“Concerning the current legislation, he considers the legal system of our community “precarious” and even adds that “laws that can be understood, we think are clearly improvable.” (…) He criticizes that “it is not easy to understand Galician legislation”, which is why he asks for its review.
In addition, he proposes that the budgets should have a simplified version and in it where the money comes from should be clear.”
It’s not something new, then. It’s not a mistake. It’s a systematic corruption of the meaning of laws in order to maintain a Francoist regime. I may be wrong. Anyway, I think this analysis casts a lot of shadows on the existence of a “rule of law” in Spain. And would like to formally, as formally as possible, ask the European Institutions, ECA, European Court of Auditors, Council of Europe, European Commission, Venice Commission, don’t know which, don’t know how, nor which steps I should follow, to intervene and support a democracy here. Though they surely know. I’ll link a few EWK articles about it.
iv) Ordinary legislative procedure (CR) Arts. 117 – 119 : assessing and voting this “verdict” (a final decision of the Commission, the Budget Commission in the Parliament, on a debate “inside the Commission” ((CR) Art. 114.1), probably never held, not mentioned in the “processing schedule, at least) in a plenary session of the Parliament. Labeled as “Approval by the Plenary of the verdict of the Commission,” that plenary session, a few of them, appears in the last section of number 1), 1.10, in the schedule, the “processing schedule” etc., of these Budgets and is set on four (?) days: November 21st – November 24 th (2022).
Let’s see those (CR) Arts. 117 – 119. They talk about that debate, that plenary session in which the Parliament will decide on 1.9.
– (CR) Art. 117 states that the “Parliamentary Groups” will have a period of 48 hours (this period in the “ calendar” for processing 2023 budgets is fulfilled; this 48 hours term (CR) Art. 117 points out in its initial sentence) “to communicate in a written statement to the President of the Parliament the points they have defended in the debate held inside the Commission but, after the vote, have not been incorporated into the verdict, to defend them in a plenary session of the of the Parliament, the Congress.”
“Verdict by the Commision” (1.9 in the “processing schedule) is set for “not later” than November 19th; “Approval by the Plenary of the verdict of the Commission,” that “verdict” solving an “internal” debate, a debate “inside the Commission” that I can’t understand how could happen, a discussion “article by article, based on the “report,” a weird report, btw, whats the use of it, comparing the text of the bill and the amendments, just to check if the the text has been amended and who did it? between “amendants” and members of the Commission, (1.10 in the “processing schedule”), starts (a few sessions) on November 19th: 48 hours.
– (CR) Art. 118 details how the President of the Parliament, taking into account the say of the Board of the Parliament and the Board of formed by the appointed Spokesmen of all Parliamentary groups, may organize the debate and the voting (“by articles,” or “by subjects, or “grouping together articles or amendments” if the difficulty of the text gives a reason for it, or the similar content, or a connection in the aims of the amendments, or it’s needed to make the political confrontation clearer.)
– Finally, (CR) Art. 119 doesn’t allow the process to end there. Art 119 points out that, after the debate and the vote in the plenary session of the deputies have ended, if, as a result of the approval “of a particular vote,” “an amendment” or “the vote on the articles” (but it was a “verdict,” or rather the “amendments to articles” not taken into account in it,” what was submitted in a plenary session to deputies, why “a particular vote,” why “the vote on the articles”? A wicked text analysis?) a text that is confusing results, the text approved in this plenary session by the deputies can be forwarded again to the Commission and the Commission asked to rewrite it more clearly in the term of a month. The result will be submitted again to the Parliament which will decide on this new text in a single vote.
(CR) Arts. 133 – 135 on CHAPTER THREE, “Special rules of legislative procedure,” specifically “budgets” insist on this careful breakdown of the text: “The final debate of the Finance Bill … shall be conducted by differentiating between the sections of the bill as a whole and each of its headings.”
v) The “processing schedule” of 2023 budget fixed by the Board of the Congress ends here. (CR) Arts. 123 – 125, ruling the last steps of “ordinary legislative procedure” remark that it is mandatory to submit the bill to the Senate. And that the veto or the amendments of the Senate will again be submitted for voting in a plenary session of the Parliament. This vote will not decide on the bill, it will decide on whether to accept or reject the veto or the amendments of the other chamber.
Spanish Finance Bill for 2023 was never sent to the Senate, unless I’m wrong or missed something or I’m a target of malware.
Good.
Felipe VI sanctions General State Budgets the processing of which ends in… I don’t know… the “approval in a plenary session of the Congress of Deputies of a verdict of the Budget Committee rejecting a few partial amendments.”
This is how 2023 Finance Bill appears in the BOE, the State Official Gazette.
Ley 31/2022 de 23 de diciembre.
At the top of the page, the initial sentence reads:
“All those who present are provided with sight and understanding, Know this: That the General Courts (“Cortes Generales”) have approved and I come to sanction the following law.
Felipe VI surely ignores what the term “Cortes Generales,” “General Courts” means.
And, no, I can’t understand how the Spanish Congress manages to deal with an 850-page document using this processing schedule.
The link above leads to the usually painstakingly drafted “synopsis,” (overview, digested commentary) of Article 66 in the Spanish Constitution. The Spanish Congress provides the e-text of the whole of it, each article linked to its “synopsis.”
Article 66 CE reads:
Article 66
The Cortes Generales (General Courts) represent the Spanish people and are made up of the Congress of Deputies and the Senate.
The Cortes Generales (General Courts) exercise the legislative power of the State, approve its Budgets, control the action of the Government and have the other powers attributed to them by the Constitution.
The Cortes Generales (General Courts) are inviolable.
Synopsis was made by: Manuel Alba Navarro, Lawyer of the General Courts. December, 2003.
Reviewed by the updating team of the Portal of the Constitution. August, 2006.
Updated by Ángeles González Escudero, Lawyer of the Cortes Generales. January 2011.
Updated by Mercedes Cabrera, Lawyer of the General Courts. January, 2018.
Books they refer as useful are at least 20 years old:
Las Cortes Generales / Jaime Aguilar Fernández-Hontoria… [et al.] ; Dirección General del Servicio Jurídico del Estado.–Madrid : Instituto de Estudios Fiscales, D.L. 1987
3 v. ; 24 cm.
• Garrorena Morales, Ángel
Representación política y constitución democrática : (hacia una revisión crítica de la teoría de la representación) / Angel Garrorena Morales ; prólogo de Manuel Aragón Reyes.–[1ª ed.] Madrid : Civitas, 1991
121 p. ; 18 cm.
• Manzella, Andrea
Las Cortes en el sistema constitucional español / Andrea Manzella., en La Constitución española de 1978 / estudio sistemático dirigido por los profesores Alberto Predieri y Eduardo García de Enterría. — 1ª ed. — Madrid : Civitas, 1980. — P. 459-504.
• Punset, Ramón
La dualidad de las cámaras y su posición constitucional / Ramón Punset., en Estudios parlamentarios / Ramón Punset. — Madrid : Centro de Estudios Políticos y Constitucionales, 2001. — P. [1]-112.