In a significant development within Spain's judicial landscape, the Constitutional Court is set to remove magistrate José Mario Macías from decision-making processes regarding the contentious Amnesty Law.

The court's plenary session, scheduled to commence next Tuesday, is expected to address and endorse a proposal for Macías's recusal on grounds of partiality.

Sources within the Constitutional Court anticipate that the report will garner approval, with votes predicted from at least the six members of the court's progressive sector, potentially joined by dissenting voices from the four-member conservative bloc.

Macías's removal follows the self-imposed abstention of former Justice Minister Juan Carlos Campo, who opted out of deliberations concerning the Amnesty Law due to his previous role.

Campo had been actively involved in managing decrees granting pardons to the leaders of the Catalonian independence movement, raising questions about impartiality.

Meanwhile, Macías has resisted self-recusal, maintaining that his previous statements on the law's constitutional validity do not constitute grounds for disqualification.

He argues judicial members should not be sidelined based on opinions expressed before their tenure on the bench.

This stance echoes past sentiments from conservative quarters, highlighting instances such as magistrate Concepción Espejel's unsuccessful bid for recusal during abortion legislation debates despite her public opposition.

Contrary to Macías's belief, Constitutional Court Vice President Inmaculada Montalbán's resolution advocates for his recusal, citing substantial justification.

Macías's prior endorsement of two General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) reports critically opposing the amnesty law raises concerns.

These documents, which he signed six months before joining the Constitutional Court, contended that the amnesty did not aim for political normalization in Catalonia but rather served as a political bargain to secure Pedro Sánchez’s presidency, undermining constitutional principles of equality and legal certainty.

Macías's stance influenced the Senate, dominated by the Partido Popular (PP), leading to procedural maneuvers intended to stall the law's legislative process, thereby delaying its approval in the Congress.

Following Macías’s recusal, the Constitutional Court is positioned to begin delving into the substantive legal challenges against the Amnesty Law.

Previously, Macías's involvement impeded substantive deliberations, but his exclusion shifts the court closer to examining the Supreme Court's constitutional challenge.

The recusal removes Macías firstly from judgments on the Supreme Court's unconstitutionality challenge.

However, complications may arise concerning his role as a rapporteur in the PP's appeal if Macías chooses not to abstain, necessitating further legal objections that could prolong proceedings.

Nonetheless, the Constitutional Court is now prepared to thoroughly assess the Supreme Court's objection and the law's broader legal ramifications.