PEREZ JUAN (2014) Deputies in The Fase of Justice PDF

BEITRAG aus: IGNACIO CZEGUHN (HG.): RECHT IM WANDEL – WANDEL DES RECHTS.
ISBN 978-3-412-22237-6 © 2014 by BÖHLAU VERLAG GMBH & CIE, WIEN KÖLN WEIMAR
Inhalt
Jan Dirk Harke

Der streitentscheidende Parteieid
im römischen und westgotischen Recht ...................................................... 9
Eva Schumann
Kriegerinnen in den Leges? .......................................................................... 27
Gerhard Dilcher
Dinggenossenschaft und Recht im langobardischen Italien .. ...................... 69
Dirk Heirbaut & Rik Opsommer

Das Sachsenspiegel-Lehnrecht.
Einige Bemerkungen über seine Spezifizität ................................................ 93
Heinz Holzhauer
Die Legitimation nichtehelicher Kinder. Requiem auf ein Rechtsinstitut .... 109
Karin Nehlsen-von Stryk

Zur vertraglichen Verfügbarkeit von
Ehre, Freiheit, Leib und Leben im Mittelalter ............................................ 135
Ulrike Müßig
Verfügungen von Todes wegen
in mittelalterlichen Rechts- und Schöffenbüchern .. .................................... 167
Dietmar Willoweit
Die Rechte des gemeinen Mannes. Fischerei und Waldnutzung
im Entstehungsprozess der alteuropäischen Rechtsordnung .. ..................... 205
Bernhard Diestelkamp
„Gelehrtes Recht im Umkreis des Magdeburger Oberhofes.” ..................... 225
Wolfgang Sellert
Der Recursus ad comitia im Rechtsstreit zwischen der Reichsritterschaft
am Niederrhein und dem Kurfürsten von der Pfalz um die Herrschaft
und Burg Ebernburg vor dem Kaiserlichen Reichshofrat ........................... 245
DIESER eSONDERDRUCK DARF NUR ZU PERSÖNLICHEN ZWECKEN UND WEDER DIREKT NOCH INDIREKT FÜR
ELEKTRONISCHE PUBLIKATIONEN DURCH DIE VERFASSERIN ODER DEN VERFASSER DES BEITRAGS GENUTZT WERDEN.
6 Inhalt
Gerhard Köbler
Appellation, Berufung, Schelte .................................................................... 281
Heiner Lück
Kursächsische Gerichtsverfassung und höchste Gerichtsbarkeit im Alten
Reich. Zur Geschichte einer besonderen Wechselbeziehung (1423 – 1559) . . .. 303
J. Friedrich Battenberg
Hofjuden und Reichskammergericht. Überlegungen zu Funktionen
jüdischer Hoffaktoren an den obersten Reichsgerichten . . ........................... 327
Bernd Schildt
Haftungsbeschränkungen von Frauen im Konkurs ..................................... 351
Anja Amend-Traut
„Geld regiert …“ Frühneuzeitliche Geldpolitik
im Lichte zeitgenössischer Rechtsprechung .. ............................................... 367
Günter Jerouschek
Heinrich Kramer (Institoris), der Malleus Maleficarum
und der Nürnberger Hexenhammer . . .......................................................... 409
Alain Wijffels
History and Law. The Case for the German Hanse against
the English Merchants Adventurers (1603 – 4) .. ........................................... 427
Pia Letto-Vanamo
Finnische Rechtsgeschichte.
Eine nordische Variante mit deutschem Einfluss ........................................ 453
Ignacio Czeguhn
Souveränität oder Superiorität. Der verfassungsrechtliche Widerstreit
des Königs mit dem Parlement im Frankreich des 17./18. Jahrhunderts . . ... 467
Hans Schlosser
Codex Maximilianeus Bavaricus.
Kodifikation zwischen Ius commune und Naturrecht ................................ 481
Inhalt 7
Michael Stolleis
Helden und Heldengesänge, Nationalepen
und Verfassungen im 19. Jahrhundert ......................................................... 499
Antonio Sánchez Aranda

La recepción de la casación francesa en el Derecho procesal español:
el Decreto de 4 de noviembre de 1838 introductorio
del recurso de nulidad . . ................................................................................ 511
Jose Antonio Pérez Juan

Deputies in the face of Justice (1820 – 1823) ................................................. 537
José Antonio López Nevot

La recepción de la historiografía jurídica alemana en España (1843 – 1936) .. 555
Martin Löhnig
Die „Gabe“: ein Fremdkörper im geltenden Zivilrecht? ............................. 583
Wilhelm Brauneder
Der Grundrechtskatalog im Landesstatut für Bosnien-Herzegowina 1910 . . . 591
Jan Schröder
Zur Rechtsquellenlehre des Nationalsozialismus
im Kontext der neuzeitlichen Entwicklung . . ............................................... 597
Hubert Rottleuthner
Gibt es einen Rechtsfortschritt? ................................................................... 617
Claus Ahrens
Ökonomische Ansätze als Wandelfaktor im Recht.
Zivilrechtliche Bilanzen .. .............................................................................. 653
Oliver Remien
Europäisches Schadensersatzrecht für Kartellrechtsverletzungen in
allgemeiner europaprivatrechtlicher Sicht. Zu einigen Regeln des
Richtlinienvorschlags vom 11.6.2013, KOM(2013) 404endg. .. ..................... 675
Olaf Sosnitza
Heininger als Subjektivist? Neues und Altes in der Methodenlehre ........... 695
8 Inhalt
Frank Zieschang
Die geschichtliche Entwicklung des § 316a StGB
und seine heutige Ausgestaltung . . ................................................................ 705
Klaus Laubenthal
Die geschichtliche Entwicklung der lebenslangen Freiheitsstrafe ............... 725
Eric Hilgendorf
Oralität, Literalität – Digitalität? Einige vorläufige Beobachtungen
zur Bedeutung der Digitalisierung für das Recht aus Anlass
der Verabschiedung des E-Government-Gesetzes 2013 ............................... 747
Autorenverzeichnis .. ......................................................................................... 765
Deputies in the face of Justice

(1820 – 1823) 1
by Jose Antonio Pérez Juan
I. Introduction
In order to guarantee the independence of the deputies, the internal regime
regulations of the Cadiz Cortes regulated the existence of a privileged code of
laws for the trials of members of parliament 2. This law specifically recognized
the inviolable nature of the deputies 3, contemplating the creation of an ad hoc
body responsible for substantiated civil and criminal cases against any of the
representatives of the Nation 4. This“Tribunal de Cortes” (Parliamentary Court)
acquired constitutional recognition in article 128 of the fundamental text of 1812
and exercised its functions during the Cadiz period and the liberal Triennium 5.
1 This study comes within the framework of the research project DER 2010 – 17927. A ver-
sion of this has been published with the title“Los Diputados ante la Justicia (1820 – 1823)
in Las Cortes de Cádiz y la Historia Parlamentaria. (The Cortes of Cadiz and Parliamentary
History), Repeto García (Coord), Cádiz, 2012.
2 The first regulation of the internal regime that regulated the Cortes in our country is
dated 24 November 1810. A printed copy of this regulation can be found in the ‘Biblio
teca del Congreso de los Diputados’ (Congress of deputies Library) with the following
reference: Reglamento para el Gobierno interior de las Cortes, Cádiz, 1810, Signature CD
24.423 – 12.
3 The well-known decree of 24 September 1810 stated that the legal body of deputies was
inviolable and no authority or private person could try to take any action against it, ex-
cept under the terms established in the Cortes regulations, FERNÁNDEZ MARTIN,
M., Derecho parlamentario español, Vol. II, Madrid, 1885, p. 104.
4 Art. 4 and 6, Chapter IV, Regulation, 24-XI-1810, in Reglamentos (Del Congreso de los
Diputados y de las Cortes), Madrid, 1977, p. 12.
5 With the enactment of the Constitution of 1837, the privileged jurisdiction for deputies
disappeared and the supplicatory mechanism was introduced, BARÓ PAZOS, J.,“Hacia
la consolidación del régimen parlamentario en España: El Congreso de los diputados en
la Constitución de 1837”, in Revista de Estudios políticos, num. 57, 1987, p. 93.
538 Jose Antonio Pérez Juan
In spite of the relevance and exceptionality of this parliamentary code of laws,

it has hardly been given any attention in histiography. With the exception of
the paper by Professor Baró Pazos about its implementation in the period of the
Cadiz Cortes, references to this Tribunal in bibliography are scarce 6. Recently,
this void has been partly compensated with the publication of the article“Notas
sobre el Tribunal de Cortes en el Trienio Liberal” (Notes about the“Parliamentary
Court” in the Liberal Triennium) which analyzes the legal framework in force
and the function of parliamentary jurisdiction during the years 1820 – 18237. In
this period, not only was the trial of Spanish deputies subjected to the recogni-
tion of a special body, the Tribunal de Cortes, as previously pointed out, but
even, the procedures for trials where the accused was a member of parliament
were governed by special rules. For example, this was what happened in the case
of press offences by members of parliament; the proceedings of which were gov-
erned by a special law.
It is important to point out that the decree of 20 October 1820 established a
new legal framework for exercising the right to the freedom of press 8. The estab-
lishment of Trial by Jury was undoubtedly one of the new points introduced by
this law. This institution, which was experimentally introduced in Spain dur-
ing the Liberal Triennium for trials about press offences, was until that time
unknown in our legal system 9. A double trial of accusation and evaluation was
established, which was similar to the British trial but with modifications to the
6 BARO PAZOS, J.,“El Tribunal de Cortes de la Constitución gaditana”, in Homenaje a

Juan Berchmans Vallet de Goytisolo, Vol. 3, 1988, pp. 93 – 106.
7 PÉREZ JUAN, J.A,“Notas sobre el Tribunal de Cortes en el Trienio Liberal” in Reflex-
iones sobre la Justicia en Europa durante la primera mitad del s.XIX (Pérez Juan, J.A and
Czeghun, I.), Alicante, 2010, pp. 191 – 221.
8 The decree was sanctioned by Fernando VII on 3 November 1820, GÓMEZ RIVERO,
R., La sanción real en la Constitución de Cádiz, Cádiz, 2010, page. 199. This law consti-
tutes an example of what Garriga has noted as“decrees with a legal character, but lacking
in sanctions: something like laws without sanctions or better said, decrees drawn up
following parliamentary procedure of laws”, GARRIGA ACOSTA, C.,“Constitución,
ley, reglamento: el nacimiento de la potestad reglamentaria en España (1810 – 1814,
1820 – 1823)”, in Anuario de Historia del Derecho Español, num. 65 (1995), p. 473 and
Cádiz, 1812. La Constitución jurisdiccional, C. Garriga and M. Lorente, Madrid, 2007,
pp. 169 – 258.
9 ALEJANDRE, J.A, La Justicia popular en España. Análisis de una experiencia histórica: Los
Tribunales de Jurados, Madrid, 1981. Prior to the publication of this decree, press offences
were judged through what are known as“Juntas de Censura” (Censorship Committees).
A study about this type of procedure in the Cadiz period vid. PÉREZ JUAN, J. A.,“Los
Deputies in the face of Justice 539
selection system, number, requirements and options to object to judges, as well

as the weighting of the vote in decision making 10.
This reform had important legal consequences for the judicial status of the
deputies. Complying with a privileged jurisdiction through the Tribunal de Cor-
tes they also benefitted from a special process for the trial of offences committed
by parliamentary members in the press. On 7 June 1821 the Cortes promulgated
the XXXVII decree which established“Procedural rules for offences committed
by Deputies through abuse of the freedom of press”.
Our research analyzes this legal framework, which has not been an easy task.
The lack of bibliography about this subject and the scarce documentation con-
served about the Tribunal de Cortes make it a difficult task. It is necessary to
take into account that during the 1823 siege, the archive suffered an important
setback and many of its dossiers were misplaced 11. The lack of sources has been
made up for by consulting the secret sessions of the Cortes and making an analy-
sis of the personal proceedings of those deputies who between the years 1820 to
1823 were indicted by the Tribunal. All of this has been supplemented through
reading the press of the time.
procesos de imprenta en las Cortes de Cádiz” in Cortes y Constitución de Cádiz. 200 años.
dir. S.A. Escudero, Madrid, 2011, Bd. II, S. 230 – 246.
10 PÉREZ JUAN, J. A.“Legal Framework for the Jury in the First Spanish Constitutional-
ism”, en Vom Diener des Fürsten zum Diener des Rechts, (Czeghun/Sánchez Aranda, Hg.)
Regensburg, 2011, p. 123. Martínez Pérez considers that from a constitutional point of
view, the Spanish Jury model is more similar to the French model than the English model,
With respect to this he states:“From the comparative analysis it can be deduced that the
development of the Spanish Jury is closer to the French model, therefore it is a long way
from the British prototype model which the primary constituent and later the ordinary
legislators wanted to identify it with, since the Spanish jury was not, as neither was the
French the“bulwark of liberty”, but merely a procedural institution for criminal trials.
In spite of claims by the Spanish legislator of its identification with the British jury, its
product was not comparable to the latter”, MARTÍNEZ PEREZ, F., Entre confianza y
responsabilidad. La Justicia del primer constitucionalismo español (1810 – 1823), Madrid, 1999,
p. 509.
11 Archivo del Congreso de los Diputados (Archive of the Congress of deputies) (hereon ACD),
Papeles reservados de Fernando VII, Volume 56, page 293. The Tribunal de Cortes expressed
itself in similar terms on 4 August 1823 in another case about the deputy Francisco Maria
Enriquez. It said:“Having found among the scarce and disorganized papers that could
be saved from the hands of the rebels in Seville…”, ACD, Papeles reservados de Fernando
VII, Volume 57, p. 173.
Research, therefore, has not been limited to the theoretical study of the legis
lation in force, but the praxis has also been looked into; trying to discover to what
extent this legislation was applied and effective. Firstly, the parliamentary process
of the cited decree of 7 June 1821 was analyzed. This enabled us to discover in
detail the special characteristics of this process and define the reasons that justi-
fied its exceptionality. In this sense, the reasons presented by some deputies in
defense of parliamentary immunity as a surety for their inviolability, and conse-
quently safeguard the Nation proved to be especially relevant. The documents
conserved in the archives related to the cases that were tried for press offences
in this period were examined. As an illustration of this, and without going into
too much detail, we came to the lawsuit which was brought before the Tribu-
nal de Cortes against the deputy López Cepero for the publication of an article
titled“D. Manuel López Cepero, diputado en Cortes a los españoles fascinados
por las imposturas de D. Lorenzo Zamora” (D. Manuel López Cepero, deputy
in the Cortes, to the Spanish people fascinated by the impostures of D. Lorenzo
Zamora).
II. “Tribunal de Cortes”

The“Tribunal de Cortes” (Parliamentary Court) appeared for the first time in
Spain in the regulations of the Cadiz Chamber on 27 November 181012. Apart
from acknowledging the inviolable nature of the deputies, this regulation esta-
blished the creation of special judicial court responsible for judging substantia-
ted civil and criminal cases against any member of parliament 13. This legislation
established little else about the composition and functions of this judicial body 14.
Later, the 1812 Constitution itself includes the“Tribunal de Cortes” in its arti
cles. This reference is especially interesting, since, unlike what happened in 1810,
it excludes civil cases. In these cases, it is specifically prohibited to file a lawsuit
against deputies until a month after they have left office 15.
12 BARÓ PAZOS,“El Tribunal de Cortes de la Constitución gaditana”…, p. 95.

13 Art. 4 y 6, Chapter IV, Reglamento, 24-XI-1810, in Reglamentos (Del Congreso de los Di-
putados y de las Cortes), Madrid, 1977, p. 12.
14 On the 7 August 1811, a new decree was promulgated which specified some of this
Tribunal’s attributions, FERNÁNDEZ MARTIN, Derecho parlamentario español, Vol.
II, pp. 108 – 109.
15 Art. 128, Spanish Constitution 1812. This parliamentary privilege which prevents depu-
ties from being demanded was introduced into the constitutional debate as proposed by
In the development of the cited constitutional regulation, in 1813, a new inter-

nal regime was established which indicated the composition of this special court
and its competencies 16. Unlike the previous decree, a stable body was advocated
as responsible for trying the criminal cases that could be substantiated during
the term of office of any deputy 17. To do so, at the start of each sessional period a
Tribunal with two courts had to be constituted in parliament; one of first instance
and the other of second instance.18. The election of members corresponded to
the Cortes plenary. It was a complex process which required the prior designa-
tion of a triple number of candidates, and the names of those who would be
incorporated into each court were drawn by sortition from these candidates 19.
In order to determine its composition, it is necessary to refer to the regulation
for Audiences and Courts of first instance of 9 October 1812. According to this
law, four members were assigned to the first and five to the second, plus a pub-
lic prosecutor. Nothing was specified about the requirements for being a magis-
trate, as it was a position that was to be renewed every 2 years and subjected to
responsibility 20. In these cases a specific process was regulated where the Assem-
bly decided whether to admit or not admit the case. If it was admitted an ad hoc
body was constituted, made up of nine deputies chosen by sortition from the
triple list drawn up for the designation of the members of the Tribunal de Cor-
tes (Parliamentary Court)21.
Parliamentary regulations differentiate between two types of procedures accor
ding to the nature of the accusation. When it dealt with a complaint against a
deputy, a system of prior inquiry was applied, where the matter was examined
by a special commission before the Chamber plenary decided whether to admit
Calatrava, MARTÍNEZ SOSPEDRA, M., La Constitución de 1812 y el primer constitu-

cionalismo español, Valencia, 1978, p. 230.
16 Chapter V, De los Diputados, Arts. 52 – 62, Reglamento, 4-IX-1813, in Reglamentos …,
pp. 30 – 32.
17 According to Fernández Sarasola, following the argument by Argüelles, this modification
was aimed at adapting the regulation to the constitutional precept which established the
right to a predetermined legal judge, that is to say,“nobody (including the deputies) could
be judged unless it was by a competent Tribunal previously authorized in the commis-
sion of the sanctioned events FERNÁNDEZ SARASOLA, I., Los primeros parlamentos
modernos de España (1780 – 1823), Madrid, 2010, p. 148, footnote.
18 Art. 52 and 58, Reglamento, 4-IX-1813.
19 Art. 53, Reglamento, 4-IX-1813.
21 Arts. 60 – 62, Reglamento, 4-IX-1813.
or not admit the case. The rest of the criminal matters were directly tried by the
special Tribunal 22. Neither was a period for the resolution of the cases established,
formulating guarantees to avoid cessation both in inter-sessional periods and at
the closure of the legislative period. In the first case, it was mandatory to con-
tinue with the matter until its conclusion, without being able to withdraw until
there were no pending cases and always notifying the permanent Delegation
about this. In the second case, the case was sent immediately to the Tribunal for
the following legislature 23.
The sentences dictated in the final instance were directly enforceable and unlike
the previous stage it was not necessary to consult with the Cortes 24.
During the Liberal Triennium, the 1813 regulations were reformed 25. A new
internal regulation of the Chamber was promulgated by decree on 29 June 182126.
In general terms the composition and functions of the Tribunal continued under
the same terms as in the previous stage. In this context, it is only of interest to
highlight the fact that in order to guarantee its continuity, the permanent Del-
egation was given the faculties to substitute vacancies or absences in the inter-
sessional period through sortition 27. However, a notable change is appreciated
in the regulation of its competencies, on its being assigned new functions. To
be exact, it is conferred the settlement of the testamentary or intestate of the
deputies 28 , as well as the aid and care of the deputies during their stay at the
Cortes. Likewise, it should assist them in case of illness, assuming the costs of
the funeral if they died.29.

25 I have been able to make a detailed study of this regulation and its practical application in
PÉREZ JUAN,“Notas sobre el Tribunal de Cortes en el Trienio Liberal”, pages. 191 – 221.
26 Chapter V, De los diputados, Arts. 54 – 67, Reglamento, 29-VI-1821, in Reglamentos …,
pp. 68 – 70.
This Regulation was applied for the first time during the third legislature of the or-
dinary and extraordinary Cortes of 1820 and 1821. On this occasion, the Parliamentary
sessions started on 28 September 1821 and concluded on 14 February 1822.
27 Art. 61, Reglamento, 29-VI-1821.
III. Judgment of deputies for press offences

A) The decree of 7 June 1821
The promulgation of the 1820 decree of the freedom of press raised important
doubts about the way to try deputies in this matter 30. Should they be subjected
to Trial by Jury or to the contrary, should they continue being judged by the
“Tribunal de Cortes?” The consultation had been formulated some time earlier
by the deputy Tapia, who applied to the Cortes to make a clarification about the
bodies competent in this type of proceeding 31. In response to this question, the
Cortes formed a mixed commission, integrated by deputies from the parliamen-
tary press commission and internal regime commission, who would be responsi-
ble for drawing up a regulation about this particular matter 32. Some weeks later
30 At present, I am carrying out a broad study about the application of the Jury in Spain
during these years. However, I have had the opportunity to analyze the legal framework
in PÉREZ JUAN, J. A.“Legal Framework for the Jury in the First Spanish Constituti-
onalism”, en Vom Diener des Fürsten zum Diener des Rechts, (Czeghun/Sánchez Aranda,
Hg.)Regensburg, 2011, pp. 116 – 137.
31 “Once the act was passed, Sr. Tapia pointed out the following: The Cortes should state
whether the offences that deputies commit in abuse of the freedom of press should
be tried by the judges drawn by sortition by the councils, or whether, when a case of
this nature occurred, they should select the two juries from the Congress itself as the
law stipulates, so that they can evaluate the document, and afterwards the Tribunal de
Cortes should apply the sentence. This petition was read by Tapia himself, he said very
clearly that the constitutional law wanted to place the deputies in absolute independence
from the courts, providing them to be tried by persons from the same congress, which
could not take place if the judges, chosen by sortition by the councils, had to try the
offences which the deputies commit through the press, since in such cases they would
be subjected to the decision or ruling of these judges, and they could be imprisoned or
punished by virtue of their evaluation. Consequently, he believed that on being con-
trary to the constitutional article that had been read, and that serious drawbacks could
subsequently occur, the jurors should be chosen by sortition from the members of the
Congress, who would have to evaluate the text by a deputy charged according to the
law. The proposal was admitted, and it was sent to the two commissions for internal
Regulations of the Cortes and for Freedom of Press”, Diario de Sesiones de Cortes (hereon
DSC ), extraordinary session of 16 March 1820, published in Gaceta de Madrid, num. 77,
Sunday, 18. March 1820.
32 This commission was integrated by the deputies Tapia; Sancho; Muñoz Torrero; Arrieta;
Vadillo; García Page, Toreno; Navarro; Martínez de la Rosa y Martel, Adición al Reglamento
interior de Cortes sobre el modo de juzgar a los señores diputados en las causas de libertad de
a draft decree was presented to the plenary about how deputies should be tried
for abuse of the freedom of press 33. The proposal, founded on article 128 of the
1812 Spanish constitution, was justified by the need to conserve the validity of
parliamentary jurisdiction as a guarantee of independence and to safeguard the
Spanish Nation 34.
The draft decree, with a total of twelve precepts was subjected to a second
reading on 16 May 1821, initiating the debate about its formulation some days
later 35. In general terms the process is developed around the regulations in force
in matters related to press, establishing characteristics specific to the case of the
accused being a deputy 36. What were these characteristics?
Before dealing with these characteristics and without going into too much
detail, it is necessary to point out how press offences were processed 37. Once the
charges about a written text were known, the competent Council summoned a
Jury of accusation who would declare whether to admit or not admit the case to
trial 38. If the case was not admitted, it would be dismissed. If it was admitted, it
would be remitted to the court of first instance in the area. From this moment,
it was the technical judge’s responsibility to develop the necessary proceedings
in order to suspend the sale of issues and to find out who was responsible for
its publication 39. Prior to the start of the hearing the Council would notify the
court of the list of the twelve judges who would evaluate the text. The accused
would receive a copy of the charges along with the list, and in a maximum period
imprenta, Madrid, 1821. A copy of this publication can be consulted in the Library at the
Congress of Deputies, signature D. 1291 – 192.
33 The draft text was presented to the Cortes in the session of 5 May 1821, ACD, Dossier
130, num. 46.
34 “The commissions for the Freedom of Press and Regulations had meditated at length the
indications made by Deputy Tapia that the Cortes should state whether the offences that
the Deputies commit through abuse of the freedom of press have to be tried by judges
designated for other citizens, or whether they have to be chosen by sortition from the
Congress itself ”, ACD, Dossier 130, num. 46. Likewise, vid. DSC, num. 67, 5 May 1821.
35 DSC, num. 84, session of 22 May 1821.
36 Art. 1, decree XXXVII, 7 June1821, Reglas para el procedimiento en los delitos de los Dipu-
tados por abuso de libertad de imprenta.
37 At this time the legal framework in force in these matters was the decree LV, 22-X-1820,
Reglamento acerca de la libertad de imprenta.
38 PÉREZ JUAN,“Legal Framework for the Jury in the First Spanish Constitutionalism”,
p. 125.
p. 126.
of twenty-four hours he had the power to object to up to seven of those named,

being under no obligation to give his reasons why. The Tribunal started its actions
with the preceptive swearing in of the members 40. Once the public audience was
opened the accused presented his defense personally or through his representa-
tive. Immediately afterwards the public prosecutor, receiver or person who had
formulated the charge took the stand. Finally, the defendant intervened again
responding to the arguments by the plaintiff. Next, the magistrate carried out a
recompilation of the process“for illustration to the judges” who would retire to a
closed room to discuss the matter. If the evaluation was absolution, the accused
was ordered to be released or bail was removed 41. To the contrary, if the resolution
was condemnation then the concurrence of at least eight of the twelve possible
votes was required, indicating whether the text should be qualified as seditious,
subversive, inciting disobedience, obscene or defamatory 42.
The draft decree established that if the author of a publication was a deputy,
the mayor of the council where the charge had been made should transfer the
whole case to the president of the Cortes 43. Some of the members of the House
did not like this proposal because they saw it as a clear violation of the decree
for freedom of press where it states that the identity of the author would only
be known before the evaluation Jury, never in this first phase 44. The commission
40 “(…) They will be sworn in under the following terms: Do you swear to act well and faith-
fully in the office you have been entrusted, evaluating impartially and justly a ccording to
your legal wisdom and understanding, the reported document you have been given, abid-
ing by the evaluation notes expressed in title III of the law for the freedom of press?=Yes,
we swear= So help me God &”, Art. 56, decree LV, 22-X-1820, Reglamento acerca de la
libertad de imprenta.
41 The formula used was the following:“Having observed all the procedures established by
law, and the evaluation of the twelve judges being absolution, the document titled …
reported on such a day by such authority or person, the law absolves N. responsible for
this text; and consequently I order him to be released immediately, or bail to be cancelled,
without these proceedings causing any harm or detriment to his name and reputation”,
Art. 62, decree LV, 22-X-1820, Reglamento acerca de la libertad de imprenta.
p. 127.
43 Art. 2, decree XXXVII, 7 June 1821
44 “Sr. ZAPATA: When the regulations for the freedom of press were discussed, I sugges-
ted that a doubt existed as to how the trial by jury should be initiated when the author’s
name appeared on the document; and the commission answered that the author’s name
was not validated until it appeared legally; and therefore although the authors name ap-
peared on the document, the trial should proceed as if he were unknown until the jurors
justified the measure in accordance with the exceptional nature of parliamen-

tary immunity, since according to article 128 of the Cadiz Constitution, depu-
ties could not be judged by any ordinary tribunal“but by their equals or peers”45.
With respect to this, it was stated that this procedural guarantee was established
to ensure the inviolability of the deputies and that this was“not for the benefit
of themselves, but for the Nation”46.
Once the Cortes received the notification, the president would choose by
sortition nine deputies to constitute the accusation Jury in a secret session. The
members of parliament designated as judges had to swear a preceptive oath before
withdrawing to deliberate whether“to admit or not admit the case to trial”. In the
latter instance, the case was returned to the Council to be filed 47. In the former,
the president of the Cortes had to call for an evaluation jury and another selec-
tion by sortition was made. On this occasion, twelve deputies were designated
to hold the office of judge for this case in a public session. After the sortition was
carried out, the parties were notified so that in accordance with the legislation in
force in matters of press, seven of the selected deputies could be rejected 48. This
point is particularly curious since in the parliamentary debates the possibility of
rejecting the members of the accusation Jury was also demanded, a faculty which
was not contemplated in press legislation for ordinary jurisdiction. The proposal
was rejected on there not being sufficient arguments to justify conceding depu-
ties this new procedural privilege 49. In the case where any of the twelve judges
should admit the case to trial (…) I would like to know what the difference is for a text,
where the author’s name may appear, to be considered as written by a Deputy and that
being the case as I have said the author of a text is not known legally until after the first
trial by jurors.” (we have underlined the above phrase), DSC, num. 84, session of 22 May
1821.
45 DSC, num. 84, session 22 May 1821.
46 In his intervention Martínez de la Rosa stated:“(…) and an article published in this way
by a Deputy, then he should be judged according to the immunity conceded to him by
the Constitution and appear before this Tribunal. If the Deputy publishes the article
without his name, he renounces this privilege and is subjected to a common trial, until
his name is known and his immunity is returned. In the first case, a deputy is a person
to whom the Constitution concedes immunity which cannot be taken from him; in the
second, he is a stranger and it is known who he is”, DSC, num. 84, session of 22 May
1821.
47 Art. 3, decree XXXVII , 7 June 1821.
48 Art. 6, decree XXXVII, 7 June 1821 and Art. 54, decree LV, 22 October 1820.
49 “With respect to the 6th: Mr. ZAPATA said: Sir, when the author of an article is un-
known, there is no reason for him to be able to object to the jurors in the first trial; but
were rejected, the president of the Cortes Tribunal should notify the plenary of
the House in order to proceed with a new sortition 50. Once the number was
completed, the twelve judges were summoned to trial, where before constitut-
ing the Jury, they had to swear a preceptive oath. Next, the hearing was held in
a public session,“all the formalities” prescribed in press legislation were observed.
In this case, the president of the Tribunal had the same attributions entrusted to
him as those assigned to the judges of first instance for ordinary processes about
the press 51. The sentence dictated by the first court of the “Tribunal de Cortes”
could be appealed against in the second court of the same judicial instance. It
is significant that in the initial draft decree presented before the Chamber, the
first court itself is designated to try the appeals 52. This point was detected by the
deputy San Miguel on pointing out that, in accordance with the regulations of
the internal regime of the Cortes, whoever holds the position of president is the
first magistrate of the first court. For this reason, he applied for the second court
to be the one to try the appeals for the resolutions dictated in press matters 53.
From the start, it was apparent that the application of this regulation was not
going to be easy. Some drawbacks, produced from putting this special process
into motion, had already arisen during the parliamentary procedures for draft-
ing the decree.
On the one hand, if these cases corresponded to the president of the Cortes,
who would judge them in the inter-session periods? What would happen when
the Cortes did not meet? On the other hand, it was apparent that this procedure
when the author is known, as in this case, it should be possible to object to jurors even
in the first trial, because this trial can cause serious harm. Therefore, if an objection exists
in the second trial, it should also exist in the first. Mr. VICTORICA: I find no reason
for conceding a privilege which is not given to other citizens, because this Jury does not
deal with the condemnation of the accused as a criminal, but to state whether to admit
or not admit a case to trial, and it should be believed that the deputies named by the
Cortes will not be inconsiderate in their decision. And if for other offences, the “Tribunal
de Cortes” can order the imprisonment of a Deputy, why are the jurors selected by sor-
tition from among themselves unable to say whether to admit the case to trial?”, DSC,
num. 84, session of 22 May 1821.
50 Art. 7, decree XXXVII , 7 June 1821.
51 Art. 8 and 9, decree XXXVII, 7 June 1821.
52 Art. 10, draft decree “About how to judge deputies for abuse of the freedom of press”:
The first Court of the „Tribunal de Cortes“ will try the appeals that are presented in these
trials according to the articles 75, 76 and 77 of the law of 12 November.
53 DSC, num. 84, 22 May 1821.
was applied to texts by deputies, but what happened when the article published
was anonymous or appeared under a false name?
A solution was soon found for the first question. The legal text itself established
that in cases when the plenary was not meeting, it would be the president of the
permanent Delegation who would summon his colleagues from the Delegation
and the members of parliament resident in the capital or nearby towns, so as to
choose by sortition from among them the nine judges who would make up the
accusation Jury 54. In these cases, the same as when the Cortes plenary met, if
the resolution was“to not admit the case”, the case was returned to the Consis-
tory, however, if it was“to admit the case to trial”, the president of the Delega-
tion had to submit the resolution to the Tribunal de Cortes for the accused to
be arrested or given bail as established in the regulations, delaying the trial until
the meeting of the next Cortes 55.
The response to the second question was challenged more. It was clear that the
exceptional nature of the process was justified by the nature of the subject, that is
to say, by his character or condition as deputy. But what would happen when the
member of parliament wrote anonymously? Could he be judged by an ordinary
court? Was this situation already contemplated in some way in the very decree
which established that if the author of the publication were not identified or the
text had been published under a“false name”, the proceedings should continue
their normal path and be resolved in the municipal courts 56. However, the draft
decree established, furthermore, that in these cases, once a positive verdict was
passed by the Jury of accusation and the judge from the first court had found
that the author was a deputy, the whole case had to be referred to the president
of the Cortes in order to continue with the proceedings 57.
One sector of the chamber did not like this proposal. The fact that a member
of parliament could be judged by a common people’s Jury and that an ordinary
judge was empowered to send a deputy to prison or impose a fine or bail was
considered as a violation of parliamentary inviolability and, therefore, contrary
to article 128 of the Cadiz fundamental text 58. The matter was widely debated
54 Art. 11, decree XXXVII, 7 June 1821.

57 Art. 5, draft decree“About how to judge deputies for abuse of the Freedom of Press”.
58 As an illustration of this, we quote the words by the deputy Victoria:“With reference to
the comments by Sr. Romero Alpuente, I add that according to this article, imprison-
ment of a deputy of the Cortes is left to the decision of a court other than the one indi-
cated by the Constitution; because if a Jury declares the admission of a case, the Tribunal
in the heart of the Cortes. The commission for drawing up the text defended its
proposal because it considered that the deputy who published an article without
identifying himself was renouncing his privileged immunity 59. Detractors of this
measure, one of whom was Juan Romero Alpuente, argued that parliamentary
inviolability under the protection of the Constitution was not a personal right
of deputies, but a guarantee for the Nation, a circumstance which meant that
this prerogative was not at the free disposal to members of parliament. In this
sense, an application was made to withdraw the proposed text and draw up a
new article which would indicate that“if at the beginning of the trial an ordi-
nary tribunal discovered that the accused was a deputy, and the case was admit-
ted to trial, it should be remitted to the Tribunal de Cortes”60. Finally, the peti-
tion was accepted and towards the end of May, another text for this precept was
presented by Juan Romero Alpuente as indicated above 61. The new article was
passed on the fourth of June in the plenary of the Cortes 62. In this same session,
de Cortes will have to send the Deputy to prison. In this sense, it is either necessary to
specify to Deputies that they should not put their name on an article, or a declaration
by the Cortes that the case is admitted to trial will have to precede prison. I would like
the commission to look into this objection, so that the imprisonment of Deputy should
not have to depend on the decision of a court outside his immunity”, DSC, num. 84,
session 22 May 1821.
59 “Sr. TAPIA: The commission was aware of these difficulties, but in accordance with the
fact that the Deputy himself was hiding his name, this bound him to an ordinary court”,
DSC, num. 84, session 22 May 1821.
60 “Sr. ROMERO ALPUENTE: Sir, speaking about the case where a Deputy appears as
the author of a text, it has been said that the text should be evaluated by the Tribunal de
Cortes in virtue of the immunity conceded to Deputies by the Constitution, it is not a
gift to the persons themselves, but to the Nation, so that they may have this second gua-
rantee of inviolability or be able to manifest their opinions frankly, without fear of being
pursued by any authority or court other than their own”, DSC, num. 84, session de 22
May 1821.
61 ACD, Dossier 130, num. 46 Minuta presentando reformado el art.º 5º del Proyecto de decreto
de Libertad de imprenta.
62 DSC, num. 97, session 4 June 1821. The final text was expressed in the following terms:“If
it is stated in the case that the previous article discusses that the case is admitted to trial,
and the judge of the first instance has discovered that the author is a Deputy, the judge
will submit everything acted on in relation to the text, through the Secretariat of Justice,
to the President of the Cortes, who will proceed in accordance with the stipulations of the
art. 2th, so as to verify whether to admit or not admit the case; consequently following
all the procedures in cases where an article is published under the name of a Deputy”,
Art. 5, decree XXXVII, 7 June 1821.
another proposal was presented by the Deputy Tapia for a special regime to also
be applied to conciliation trials provided for under the press regulations in cases
of slander. It was proposed that in these cases, the president of the Cortes with
two other deputies“will act as arbiters”63. This latter petition was not accepted,
and the final text was passed on 7 June 182164.
B) Practical application:
trial against the deputy Manuel López Cepero
At this point, we should investigate the effectiveness of this regulation. Did it

come to be applied? Were any deputies brought to trial for press offences? At the
beginning of this paper, we have already pointed out the difficulties that exist
to carry out research about the“Tribunal de Cortes”. The loss of documents has
made it complicated to follow the cases that were brought before this privileged
code of law 65. However, among Fernando VII’s confidential papers preserved in
the Archive of the Congress of Deputies, we have been able to find some specific
trials about this particular issue 66. It is not within the scope of this paper to make
a detailed and specific study of each of the documents, but as an illustration, it
is in our interest to indicate some features or special characteristics that enable
us to state the validity and application of the decree of 7 June 1821. One of the
trials referred to affects the deputy Manuel López Cepero y Ardila 67. Born in
63 The proposal was presented in the following terms:“The President of the Cortes when it
meets and the President of the permanent Delegation in the interval between one legis-
lature and another, will respectively exercise the role of conciliator, accompanied by two
other Deputies who will act as arbiters, to conclude through conciliation, and in the
cases admitted by law, all the differences that the Deputies of the Cortes may be party
to”, DSC, num. 97, session 4 June 1821.
64 DSC, num. 101, session of 8 June 1821. The text would finally be endorsed on 14 June.
The original minutes can be consulted in ACD, Dossier 130, num. 46.
65 PÉREZ JUAN,“Notas sobre el Tribunal de Cortes en el Trienio Liberal”, p. 192.
66 These documents were complemented with the general section and elections from the
same Archive. Furthermore, it was necessary to examine the secret sessions of the Cor-
tes, the Diary of the Chamber and press published at that time. All this information has
made it possible to reconstruct some of the cases brought before the „Tribunal de Cortes“
regarding press matters.
67 Among the dossiers analyzed, a case which stands out is the one substantiated against José
Moreno de Guerra for an article published in the Diario gaditano 21 September 1821. This
case started as a consequence of charges brought by José Duval in name and representation
Jerez de la Frontera in 1778, he was a staunch defender of the national cause in

the war of independence, playing an important role in the diffusion of consti-
tutional values during the Cortes of Cadiz and the period of the Liberal Trien-
nium. During those years, he published his papers Lecciones políticas para uso de
la juventud (Political lessons for use by young people) (1813) and later, Catecismo
religioso moral y político (Religious, moral and political catechism) (1822)68. With
the reestablishment of absolutism, he retired to the country dedicating his time
to study and farming, returning to public life in 1834 when he settled in Seville
and took on different religious, political and academic offices until his death on
12 April 185869.
of the consul general of Spain in Gibraltar, Juan González de Rivas. The act by the Jury
of accusation reads under these terms::“To the President of the Tribunal de Cortes= The
President of the permanent Delegation on 17 submitted to me an official communication
governed by the provisions of the law of 7 June which was addressed to him by the Sec-
retary of Justice with the file remitted to him by the 1st Constitutional Mayor of Cadiz
about the charges presented to his court by D. José Duval, in name of D. Juan Gónzalez
de Rivas consul general of Spain in Gibraltar, in reference to the article published in the
Cadiz Diario on last 21 September nº 362 as being slanderous and seriously offensive to
the persons and honor of those who granted him this authority; this article appears as
signed by José Moreno de Guerra, deputy of the Cortes for the province of Cordoba.
The Deputies of the Cortes having met in a secret session yesterday, proceeded with the
sortition of the nine judges as stipulated by law, immediately after having sworn the cor-
responding oath the trial was held and the reported text was examined, the above-men-
tioned judges having stated“that the case be admitted to trial” according to the outcome
from the agreement outlined in the footnotes of the appeal by D. José Duval and in the
book of acts of the jurors of the Cortes. By virtue thereof, in accordance with article 12
of the cited law, I hand his honor the original file for the purposes prescribed = Dios &
Madrid, 19 November 1821= Francisco Martínez de la Rosa”, ACD, Papeles reservados de
Fernando VII, Volume 46, p. 121, r-v.
68 This publication was announced in the papers of the time. El Universal highlighted
“the mastery and conciseness” the political part had been written, in its development,
it said“with great clarity of the theory of the three powers and the delicate question of
man’s civil liberty. We believe it would be advisable to adopt it in schools”, El Universal,
26 January1822, p. 75. Likewise, El Periódico de las Damas recommended its subscribers
to read this work“to educate the young according to the true principles of religion and
morality, as well as to instruct them in obligations and civil rights, and in the principal
elements of our Constitution”, El Periódico de las Damas, num. 2, 1822, p. 46.
69 ROS GONZÁLEZ, F. S.,“Manuel López Cepero and the church reform of the University
of Seville”, in Laboratorio de Arte: Revista del Departamento de Historia del Arte, num. 19,
2006, pp. 423 – 425. Classical works are already known by J. PABÓN “Del Deán López
This gentleman from Jerez, deputy for Seville in the 1820 elections 70, had been
slandered by the revenue administrator in Cazalla, Lorenzo Zamora, in issues 44
and 47 of the newspaper Defensor de la Patria 71. In these articles the clergyman
was accused of being a fraudster, committing perjury and a“terrible patriot”72.
Before these events, towards the end of January 1821, the deputy applied to the
constitutional mayor of Seville, Justo García de la Mata, to hold a concilia-
tion hearing. In this action, José Antonio de Agreda participated as arbiter and
Alejandro Asensio, as secretary 73. When the hearing took place, the parties allayed
their claims and mutually agreed to make good the harm caused through the
publication of articles by both rectifying their accusations 74.
However, far from being settled, the disputes became more intense. Another
article about López Cepero appeared in number 48 of the cited Seville newspaper
which led him to bring charges against Zamora before the court authorities 75.
Likewise, the revenue administrator from Cazalla decided to resort to protection
before the competent authorities because of the accusations made against him
in the libel titled“D. Manuel López Cepero, diputado en Cortes a los españoles
fascinados por las imposturas de D. Lorenzo Zamora” (D. Manuel López C epero,
Cepero: apunte autógrafo y autobiográfico” in Boletín de la Real Academia de la Historia,

volume CLXXI, book. III, Madrid, 1974, M. RUIZ LAGOS El dean López Cepero y la
ilustración romántica (ensayo crítico y literario sobre un ilustre jerezano del siglo XIX), Jerez
de la Frontera, 1970 and M. TERUEL y G. de TEJADA, Rasgos claves de la vida de Ma-
nuel López Cepero, Sevilla, 1964.
70 ACD, Documentación electoral, Dossier 6, num. 7 and Dossier 6, num. 26.
71 El Universal, num. 59, Thursday, 28 February 1822.
72 “The contents of this paper can be reduced to three, and they are as follows: that Sr.
Cepero has contributed with all his efforts to the dilapidation of the nation’s funds; this
very man is a perjurer, and that this terrible patriot (known in Seville as Defender of
the Patria) gave him eight “duros” not to publish his iniquities”, El Universal, num. 301,
Thursday, 28 October 1821.
73 El Universal, num. 301, Thursday, 28 October 1821.
74 El Universal, num. 59Thursday, 28 February 1822.
75 The articles were reported by López Cepero on 23 February 1821 as “slanderous and de-
famatory libels”. The Jury of evaluation met and agreed to absolve the accused, Lorenzo
Zamora, ordering the judge of the first instance of Seville, Luis Ortiz de Zúñiga, “to
cancel bail and the suspension of the sale of the issues, without this proceeding causing
harm or detriment to his name and reputation; and condemned Sr. Cepero to all the
costs of this case according to fair taxation and regulation; and the publisher D. Manuel
Carrera, for having broken article 28 of the law of freedom of press, was condemned to
pay 50 ducats, as stipulated” Gaceta de Madrid, num. 283, 4 October 1821.
deputy in the Cortes, to the Spanish people fascinated by the impostures of D.

Lorenzo Zamora).
As the case involved a member of parliament, in accordance with the often cited
decree of 7 June 1821, the judge form the Seville, Luis Ortiz de Zúñiga 76, submit-
ted the case to the Cortes. On this occasion, as the plenary was not in session, the
matter was remitted to the permanent delegation, whose president summoned his
colleagues and the deputies resident in the capital or in the nearest municipals to
carry out the sortition of the nine judges who would have to try the case 77. On 29
August, the sortition was made at the palace of the Cortes, however, the swearing
in and the constitution of the Jury of accusation had to be delayed until 3 Septem-
ber “because of the absence of some of the deputies selected”78. At 11 in the morning
of the indicated day, and once all the proceedings stipulated in the legislation in
force were complied with, the Jury declared the case to be admitted to trial. The
documents were then immediately remitted to the president of the Tribunal de
76 GÓMEZ RIVERO, R., Los jueces del Trienio Liberal, Madrid, 2006.
77 ACD, Papeles reservados de Fernando VII, Volume 46, p. 81r. Likewise, Actas de la Diputación
permanente, session of 18 August 1821. El Universal newspaper gave an account of the start
of the proceedings. It said:“In virtue of the summons from the President of the perma-
nent delegation of the Cortes, this morning the deputies resident in this capital and in
the towns at a day’s journey from here have met in the Chamber to name the nine judges,
who in virtue of the articles further to the law of the freedom of press should reach an
understanding in reference to the charges made about an article published in Seville, and
for which Manuel López Cepero, deputy for that province, seems to be responsible. The
names of the deputies having been presented, the nine judges were drawn by sortition,
and will meet to state whether to admit or not admit the case to trial when summoned
to by the President of the permanent Delegation”, El Universal, num. 242, 30 August
1821, page. 3.
78 The communication citing the deputies fortunate to be selected as judges is expressed
in the following terms: “To the. Deputy. = Having today proceeded with the sortition
of the nine judges from among the deputies, who have to state whether to admit or not
admit the case to trial in view of the charges about the article titled “D. Manuel López
Cepero, diputado en Cortes, á los españoles fascinados por las imposturas de D. Lorenzo
Zamora” (D. Manuel López Cepero, deputy in the Cortes, to the Spanish people fasci-
nated by the impostures of D. Lorenzo Zamora) as I announced to your Honour in my
offices on the 20 of this month, it has corresponded to your honor by sortition to be one
of the nine judges, and you should attend a meeting to carry out your duties on Monday
3 September, I advise you for your intelligence and in order to summon you to the palace
of the Cortes at 11 in the morning = Dios & Madrid, 29 August 1821= José Maria Calat-
rava, president”, ACD, Papeles reservados de Fernando VII, Volume 46, p. 79 r.
Cortes to continue with the proceedings 79. From this moment, we do not know
what the exact substantiation of the case. However, it is true that on 19 November
1821, the Tribunal de Cortes concluded the trial by dictating a court order which
extensively outlined the purposes of an act of conciliation endorsed months earlier
in which the interested parties would desist from their claims 80. The result of the
parliamentary Tribunal was drawn up in the following terms: “Effectuating with-
out any cause or distortion to the agreement between Manuel López Cepero and
Zamora in the conciliation trial held on thirtieth of January of this year before the
1st mayor of the constitutional city of Seville, in which, both parties agreed to have
proceeded, Zamora without exact news and details, mistakenly calling Cepero a
fraudster of public interests in numbers 44 and 47 of the newspaper called “Defen-
sor de la Patria”, and the latter with vehemence in the reported article, both parties
also agreed to present two articles in the same newspaper in the terms that the act
of the trial itself expresses, both renouncing all ulterior procedure originating from
these papers. The fulfillment of which is to be certified in the exact term of twenty
days. Cepero is reserved the right to use it before whoever and however it suits
him, making effective the acknowledgement with the necessary publications, if he
were to so demand. The President of the permanent Delegation being informed
and having communicated to him this resolution to the effect that it is sustained;
and informing both parties; they have endorsed it, Madrid, 19 November 1821”81.
In fulfillment of this resolution, on 6 December 1821, López Cepero publicly
renounced carrying out any action against Zamora linked to the referred to articles 82.
79 ACD, Papeles reservados de Fernando VII, Volume 46, p. 81v. On those dates the presidency
of the Trial was held by the deputy Echevarría, PÉREZ JUAN, “Notas sobre el Tribunal
de Cortes en el Trienio Liberal”, p. 201.
80 Actas de la Diputación permanente, session of 21 November 1821.
81 The resolution was dictated by the first Court of the Tribunal de Cortes with the assistance
of the prosecutor and the deputies Echevarría; Cosio; Marcial; López y Michelena, ACD,
Papeles reservados de Fernando VII, Volume 46, p. 126r. A copy of this resolution iwas pu-
blished in the newspaper El Universal, num. 340, Thursday, 6 December 1821.
82 “I solemnly renounce the right to replicate against them and oblige them to compen-
sate for the injury they have caused me. I forgive them since, content with imploring
them to be more devoted and observant of the laws”, El Universal, num. 340, Thursday,
6 December 1821. Justo García de la Mata, constitutional mayor of Seville did not like
these words, and in El Universal num. 59 of Thursday 28 February1822 he wrote a broad
memorial in defense of his action.

PEREZ JUAN (2014) Deputies in The Fase of Justice PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

PEREZ JUAN (2014) Deputies in The Fase of Justice PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

BEITRAG aus: IGNACIO CZEGUHN (HG.): RECHT IM WANDEL – WANDEL DES RECHTS.

ISBN 978-3-412-22237-6 © 2014 by BÖHLAU VERLAG GMBH & CIE, WIEN KÖLN WEIMAR

Jan Dirk Harke

Dirk Heirbaut & Rik Opsommer

Karin Nehlsen-von Stryk

Antonio Sánchez Aranda

Jose Antonio Pérez Juan

José Antonio López Nevot

Autorenverzeichnis .. .........................................................................................  765

Deputies in the face of Justice

by Jose Antonio Pérez Juan

538 Jose Antonio Pérez Juan

In spite of the relevance and exceptionality of this parliamentary code of laws,

6 BARO PAZOS, J.,“El Tribunal de Cortes de la Constitución gaditana”, in Homenaje a

Deputies in the face of Justice 539

selection system, number, requirements and options to object to judges, as well

540 Jose Antonio Pérez Juan

II. “Tribunal de Cortes”

12 BARÓ PAZOS,“El Tribunal de Cortes de la Constitución gaditana”…, p. 95.

Deputies in the face of Justice 541

In the development of the cited constitutional regulation, in 1813, a new inter-

Calatrava, MARTÍNEZ SOSPEDRA, M., La Constitución de 1812 y el primer constitu-

542 Jose Antonio Pérez Juan

22 Art. 59, Reglamento, 4-IX-1813.

Deputies in the face of Justice 543

III. Judgment of deputies for press offences

544 Jose Antonio Pérez Juan

Deputies in the face of Justice 545

of twenty-four hours he had the power to object to up to seven of those named,

546 Jose Antonio Pérez Juan

justified the measure in accordance with the exceptional nature of parliamen-

Deputies in the face of Justice 547

548 Jose Antonio Pérez Juan

54 Art. 11, decree XXXVII, 7 June 1821.

Deputies in the face of Justice 549

550 Jose Antonio Pérez Juan

At this point, we should investigate the effectiveness of this regulation. Did it

Deputies in the face of Justice 551

Jerez de la Frontera in 1778, he was a staunch defender of the national cause in

552 Jose Antonio Pérez Juan

Cepero: apunte autógrafo y autobiográfico” in Boletín de la Real Academia de la Historia,

Deputies in the face of Justice 553

deputy in the Cortes, to the Spanish people fascinated by the impostures of D.

554 Jose Antonio Pérez Juan

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen

Autorenverzeichnis .. ......................................................................................... 765

22 Art. 59, Reglamento, 4-IX-1813.

54 Art. 11, decree XXXVII, 7 June 1821.