Opinions and reflections about Justice are often seen, as if it were something without significance, but we must not forget that it is a power that is part of our democratic structure.
Now, it seems that only judges have the right to give their opinion on the matter, and that is the first thing we have to disagree with. Nothing should be left out of the right to give an opinion, much less from the criticism or reflection that each of us deserves such relevant power.
Among those praises that many strive to proclaim when the rulings or verdicts are favorable to them, and on the contrary, the exacerbated criticism of those who are not successful, some reflections and elements that appear in Justice may be missing.
The first consideration is that we have an obsolete system of access to the judiciary. Since the Inquisition, the model has practically not been modified. Although it seems like a boutade, inequality of opportunities is evidence.
The Spanish judicial system did not experience a clear break with the structures of the Franco regime after the Transition (1975-1982). During the dictatorship, Justice was subordinate to political power, with institutions such as the Public Order Court (TOP), created in 1963, which repressed political dissidence under the appearance of legality.
This court, which tried crimes of opinion, press or association, left a legacy of distrust in judicial impartiality. Although the TOP was dissolved in 1977, many judges and judicial structures of the Franco regime continued to operate without a profound renewalwhich has generated criticism about the persistence of an authoritarian judicial culture.
Some authors compare this inheritance with the Inquisition, although there is no direct correlation. Not only because of its repressive nature, but also because of its lack of transparency and its function as an instrument of social control.
The Inquisition, in force until the 19th century, centralized power in the hands of an unelected elite. A trait that, according to some critics, it shares with the current General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ), whose composition and operation have been the subject of controversy.
Furthermore, we see how a process has been followed that is linked to the dictatorship of Francowithout any transition process, as happened with the Legislative and the Executive. The Justice model has been deviating from the dynamics of the rest of the democratic structure.
Access to the judicial career is dominated by a system of competitive examinations that, in practice, acts as a socioeconomic filter. The Government and the CGPJ are aware of this problem and are promoting proposals to expand opportunities for talented candidates, regardless of their economic capacity, such as the SERÉ scholarships.
The most obvious example is the National Court, heir without a solution of continuity of the Court of Public Order. And there it remains, without anyone having cared about its operation, whitewashed by the fight against terrorism.
The CGPJ, created by the 1978 Constitution as guarantor of judicial independence, has become one of the main focuses of criticism.
“A model where judges directly elect their members carries a risk of internal politicization due to the influence of judicial associations”
Its members, although formally independent, are elected by the Congress and the Senate, which has led to a system of political quotas where The majority parties (PP and PSOE) negotiate the appointments.
This politicization is reflected in the perception that high-ranking judges are aligned with partisan interests, which erodes citizen trust. Surveys such as those from the CIS (2023) show that only 35% of Spaniards trust the judicial system, one of the lowest rates in the European Union.
There are quite serious problems with the Judiciary. The main one, a dynamic in the CGPJ that prioritizes corporate defense.
This analysis is framed in a media ecosystem that, far from controlling, tends to polarize and simplify the debate.
A body dedicated to the defense of judges, the Venice Commission, when analyzing the CGPJ proposals, warned that a model where judges directly elect their members (as proposed by the conservative sector) carries a risk of internal politicization due to the influence of judicial associations.
This corporate model, which distances the election from Parliament, can encourage the CGPJ to dedicate itself to defending the interests of the judicial career against external criticism, instead of acting as a government body at the service of citizens.
In most of the countries around us, The judges are judged by a structure mostly of professionals who do not belong to the judiciary.
This panorama is aggravated by a media process that, with its polarization and condemning headlines, erodes institutional credibility instead of fostering an informed public debate.
The solution requires not only courageous legal reforms that address problems of efficiency and access, but also a regeneration of the social contract between Justice, the media and citizens.
“Without a profound renewal, Justice will continue to be seen by many as an opaque power, closer to the elites than to the citizens, perpetuating distrust in a key institution for democracy”
Reforms that solve, first of all, its efficiency crisis. That is not only a question of lack of means, but also of management.
Although litigation has decreased, pending cases have grown, exceeding 3.9 million, and there are unacceptable delays with court hearings set in some areas for 2029. This violates the constitutional right to effective Justice.
And reforms that also replace an obsolete organizational structure.
The traditional model of the single-person court is considered obsolete for today’s society, generating a lack of specialization, dispersion of resources and inequalities in the workload.
Recent reforms, such as Organic Law 1/2025, attempt to alleviate this situation with the creation of Courts of Instance of collegiate organization to optimize resources. Promotion based on seniority, not merit.
Approximately 90% of promotion positions are assigned by rank (seniority), not by merit or performance. What you create a system that rewards inertia and discourages effort and excellence, negatively affecting the quality of the resolutions.
Many media outlets in Spain, far from carrying out educational work, contribute to citizen distrust. There is a very pronounced polarization.
The editorial line of the media shows a clear ideological imbalance that is becoming more acute, although it must be recognized that the majority of Spaniards support the democratic role of journalism.
We have a system that some media outlets handle very frivolously, condemning with headlines what has not been investigated in most cases. It would be appropriate, as happens in other countries, if news of actions that are being investigated by judges could not be published until an oral trial is scheduled.
Without a profound renewal, Justice will continue to be seen by many as an opaque power, closer to the elites than to the citizens, perpetuating distrust in a key institution for democracy.
*** José María De la Riva is a professor of Geography and former PSOE councilor in the Madrid City Council.
The post The Spanish Justice system needs a profound reform appeared first on Veritas News.
