With the non-appearance of Margarita Robles, the third of a minister in just a week, the Government has opted for the path of fait accompli in its fight with the Senate, dominated by the PP. The Executive denies that it is a “sit-in” after the migratory crisis of July 30 in Ceuta — where 72,000 people crossed the border and more than 140 died — and alleges that the ministers will attend “later.” The maneuver, however, allows him to freeze the explanations in the hostile territory of the absolute majority of the PP until September, when more than a month will have passed since the tragedy.
The strategy seeks to gain time in the extraordinary period of August and pivot towards Congress, a much friendlier playing field for the Executive. This is demonstrated by the sequence of events. On August 5, the PP took the lead by requesting the appearance of ministers Fernando Grande-Marlaska, Margarita Robles, José Manuel Albares and Félix Bolaños in the Senate. And 48 hours later, Moncloa reacted by registering its own requests in the Lower House at its own request, setting the debate for August 25, 27 and 28 and thus shifting the institutional focus.
The difference is relevant. In the Senate, the ministers are required by the absolute majority of the PP. In Congress, it is the Government itself that has asked to appear. And although the two Chambers exercise control functions, the correlation of forces makes the second scenario much more predictable for Moncloa where its partners support the Executive and the PP cannot impose its agenda with the same ease.
At the legal level, the Government clings to an important constitutional difference. Article 110 establishes that both the Chambers and their commissions can demand the presence of members of the Government; The Senate, therefore, has the capacity to demand these appearances. But article 108 establishes that the Government is jointly responsible for its political management before Congress, the Chamber that invests the president and can withdraw its confidence in him. This difference allows Moncloa to claim the political priority of Congress, but does not make its appearance before the deputies a substitute for that which the Senate may claim.
Are there any legal repercussions? Not at all because, unlike a commission of inquiry, an absence from an ordinary control appearance does not activate the criminal regime provided for whoever neglects a request for a parliamentary investigation. The Government is thus faced with a parliamentary obligation whose failure to comply can cause an institutional and political clash, but without the criminal coercion that accompanies investigative commissions.
But the clash has already acquired an institutional dimension. Because, after Marlaska's absence last week, the Senate has already announced its determination to take the case to the Constitutional Court. The path is not easy as it is an ordinary commission, but it reveals how far the dispute between both Chambers has escalated.
On that basis, Moncloa has articulated a story that has barely changed despite the PP's complaints. He alleges that “it makes no sense to duplicate” explanations about the same crisis, appeals to the “institutional priority” of Congress, demands time to prepare appearances on a situation that is still open and questions the pressure of the PP to hold the appearances in August when it is a non-working period of the Cortes.
But the underlying reason transcends the legal. It's purely political. Going to the Senate first means accepting the rules of the game of the absolute majority of the PP. While prioritizing Congress allows Moncloa to take the initiative, first establish its version of the events and reach the Senate with the story already constructed.
It is not an unprecedented dynamic. During this term, the PP has used its absolute majority in the Senate to promote control mechanisms and investigation commissions that, sometimes, run in parallel to initiatives on the same issues in Congress, such as the management of the Valencia dana. Now the Government uses the majority of the Lower House in the opposite direction. To bring there first an explanation that the Senate demands from him on another calendar.
That is why the Moncloa formula is politically effective. It does not say that the ministers will not appear before the Senate; He says they will do it “later.” In practice, this means that the first parliamentary explanations of a crisis that began on July 30 will arrive at the end of August, almost a month after the events, and before the Chamber in which the Government better controls timing and alliances.
The Executive may maintain that it does not avoid control of the Upper House, but in practice it is leaving the Senate in the background when Spain has a bicameral system.
