Governing without Parliament, avoiding votes you might lose
Government failed to execute 2024 regulatory plan; PP demands accountability and stricter future planning measures. Opposition parties accuse government of governing without Parliament, resisting anti-corruption recommendations, and misusing judicial systems against political opponents.
- Government failed to execute 2024 regulatory plan; PP demands stricter future planning
- Multiple opposition parties accuse government of governing without Parliament and misusing judicial institutions
- Classified information law remains blocked in Congress; disagreement between Justice and Defense ministries
- Amnesty law ruled inapplicable to embezzlement charges; affects former Catalan president Carles Puigdemont
Minister Félix Bolaños appears before Congress to address government legislative planning failures and multiple opposition accusations ranging from constitutional violations to alleged misuse of judicial institutions.
Félix Bolaños, the minister overseeing the presidency, justice, and parliamentary relations, will face the Constitutional Commission of Congress on Wednesday to answer for roughly fifteen separate matters—most of them raised by opposition parties, though he has also requested time to account for his government's regulatory performance in 2025 and his work on human rights and international law.
The centerpiece of the opposition's case concerns the government's failure to execute its regulatory plan for 2024. The Popular Party, led by Alberto Núñez Feijóo, wants Bolaños to explain what steps the administration intends to take to ensure more disciplined legislative planning going forward. But the PP's grievances run deeper. They plan to confront him over what they characterize as the government's stated intention—particularly under President Pedro Sánchez—to govern without meaningful parliamentary involvement. They will demand answers about the administration's reasoning for what Moncloa calls "nuances" in justifying its failure to meet explicit constitutional obligations, including the presentation of the General State Budget.
The PP also intends to press Bolaños on the government's apparent resistance to implementing recommendations from GRECO, the Council of Europe's anti-corruption body, and accusations that the administration has concealed reports about Spain from that same organization. Beyond that sits a question about decisions made more than a year ago: why the government restructured the Center for Sociological Research, elevating the position of its president, the socialist sociologist José Félix Tezanos, in the process.
Two other PP requests touch on internal government friction. One concerns disagreements between the Justice Ministry and the Defense Ministry over a classified information bill that remains stalled in Congress. The other addresses the government's decision to terminate a weapons contract with Israel. The PP will also use the hearing to raise accusations of the Prosecutor's Office being weaponized against political opponents while showing favoritism toward those connected to Sánchez, the Socialist Party, or the government itself. They will demand explanation for what they characterize as government pressure on the Constitutional Court to overturn a Supreme Court ruling that determined the amnesty law does not apply to embezzlement charges—a decision that directly affects former Catalan president Carles Puigdemont.
Vox, the far-right party, has requested Bolaños's appearance to disclose details of meetings between Spanish government representatives and church authorities, including potential Vatican intermediaries, regarding any changes to the Valley of the Fallen monument complex. They also want to interrogate him about a financing agreement struck between the government and Catalonia's executive council and the consequences of a power outage that affected the Iberian Peninsula nearly a year ago.
The Mixed Group, representing smaller parties, has submitted its own request: they want Bolaños to explain why the government fails to comply with legal requirements when responding to information requests from deputies and senators.
What emerges from this list is a portrait of a government under sustained pressure on multiple fronts—legislative execution, constitutional compliance, judicial independence, and parliamentary transparency. Bolaños will have to navigate not just specific policy failures but broader accusations about the administration's relationship with democratic institutions themselves.
Citações Notáveis
The government's stated intention to govern without meaningful parliamentary involvement— Popular Party (PP) position
The government resists implementing anti-corruption recommendations from GRECO and has concealed reports about Spain— Popular Party (PP) accusation
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why does a minister need to appear before Congress to explain a regulatory plan that wasn't executed? Isn't that just normal governance?
It would be, except the government failed to deliver on its 2024 plan and hasn't presented a budget in years. When you stop following the basic procedures democracy requires, people notice.
The opposition mentions the government trying to "govern without Parliament." What does that actually mean in practice?
It means ruling by decree, avoiding votes you might lose, not submitting budgets for approval. It's technically possible in Spain under certain conditions, but it hollows out the legislature's role.
And the judicial weaponization accusations—is there evidence, or is this just political theater?
The PP is making the claim. Whether it sticks depends on what Bolaños can show about how cases have been handled. The fact that multiple parties are raising it suggests it's become a credible line of attack.
What about the Catalan financing deal? Why would that come up in a hearing about regulatory compliance?
Because it's controversial and Vox sees it as a betrayal—they think the government gave Catalonia too much. It's less about the minister's specific portfolio and more about using the hearing to air grievances.
So this is really about the government's survival, not just administrative failures?
Exactly. The regulatory plan failure is the hook, but the real question is whether this government can still function as a legitimate democratic authority.