A Supreme Court judge publicly questions whether exercising a constitutional right can become a crime. The conviction of David Sánchez for administrative malfeasance reopens an uncomfortable debate: would he have been prosecuted if he were not the president's brother?

Marchena's doubts about the ruling

Days ago, Manuel Marchena, a judge in the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court, delivered a lecture at CEU San Pablo University in El Escorial in which he addressed a matter that transcends the academic. The magistrate reflected on citizen distrust in the justice system, calling it a "tragedy" for any democratic society.

But his words take on particular significance when framed in the context of recent court cases affecting the presidential circle. According to eldiario.es, Marchena stressed that a contemporary society "cannot survive without trusting in justice", especially when it rests on the principle of equality as the basis of all its legal relationships.

A constitutional right turned into a crime?

The crux of the matter is disturbing: can the legitimate exercise of rights recognised in the Constitution become a crime of administrative malfeasance? This is the implicit question in the conviction of David Sánchez, the president's brother.

David Sánchez was disqualified by the Supreme Court after being convicted of malfeasance. However, subsequent legal analyses have cast doubt on whether there was solid evidence of actual influence peddling or whether perfectly legal citizens' rights were simply penalised.

Constitutional theory is clear: article 23.2 of our Constitution recognises citizens the right to access public office on equal terms. But what happens when exercising that right is interpreted as a crime?

The dilemma of formal equality

Marchena stressed that in a society based on equality, all citizens are legally equal and therefore free. The only form of relationship between free individuals is voluntary agreement, a pact, a contract. Nothing to do with the imposition of a criminal sentence.

This reflection carries weight when viewing the sentence against David Sánchez from a critical perspective: if it lacked concrete evidence of influence peddling, what was the conviction really based on? Was the surname what tipped the scales?

A question that makes people uncomfortable

The analysis published raises a question that troubles legal experts and citizens alike: would David Sánchez have been prosecuted and convicted if he were not the president's brother?

It is not a rhetorical game. It is the heart of the crisis of confidence in the justice system that Marchena himself recognises as a "tragedy". When citizens perceive that the system does not apply uniform criteria, that family or political context weighs more than evidence, equality becomes legal fiction.

For now, the conviction stands and David Sánchez remains disqualified. But the debate over whether a right rather than a crime was convicted has barely begun.