Critics of the amnesty law express deep concern that it undermines the rule of law and compromises the independence of the judiciary. By intervening in ongoing legal cases, they argue that the government is effectively granting itself the power to override court decisions for political gain. This, they warn, sets a dangerous precedent where the law becomes a tool for political negotiation rather than a neutral framework for justice.
Those skeptical of the process highlight the potential for inequality before the law. They argue that if specific individuals are granted immunity while others remain subject to standard legal procedures, it erodes public trust in the judicial system. Opponents also point out that the amnesty does not necessarily guarantee a change in the political goals of those involved, suggesting that it may only provide a temporary reprieve rather than a lasting solution to the territorial question.
There is also significant concern regarding the impact on the separation of powers. Critics maintain that the executive branch is overstepping its bounds by pressuring the judiciary to interpret the law in a way that favors political allies. This tension has led to public protests and criticism from various legal associations, who fear that the integrity of the Spanish constitution is being weakened to satisfy the demands of a parliamentary minority.
Finally, skeptics warn that the return of Puigdemont without full legal accountability could lead to further instability. They argue that if the law is applied inconsistently, it could trigger a backlash from those who believe that the 2017 actions were a direct violation of the constitution. For these critics, the priority should be the preservation of legal certainty and the protection of the state's institutions against political interference.