El parlament proposa de sancionar Sílvia Orriols i Joan Garriga per una infracció lleu

14.07.2026 - 14:52
La comissió de l’Estatut dels Diputats del parlament ha conclòs que la presidenta d’Aliança Catalana, Sílvia Orriols, i el portaveu de Vox, Joan Garriga, van vulnerar de manera lleu el codi de conducta de la cambra. Ara serà la mesa del parlament qui haurà de decidir si imposa una sanció i quina és.
El president de la comissió, Toni Castellà (Junts), ha explicat que els dos casos s’emmarquen en l’article 7 del codi de conducta, que obliga els diputats a mantenir una actitud exemplar i respectuosa en l’exercici de les seves funcions.
En el cas d’Orriols, l’expedient es va obrir arran d’unes declaracions contra la diputada d’ERC Najat Driouech, a qui va acusar de “normalitzar la misogínia i el fonamentalisme islàmic” pel fet de portar vel al parlament.
Pel que fa a Garriga, la comissió ha considerat infracció lleu dues intervencions. D’una banda, les declaracions en què va qualificar de “assassí” el president de la Generalitat Lluís Companys durant una reunió de la junta de portaveus. De l’altra, unes manifestacions en un ple de maig del 2025 en què va acusar el PSOE d’haver-se gastat “durant anys” diners públics “en drogues i prostitutes”.
En canvi, la comissió ha arxivat l’expedient obert contra la diputada de Vox Júlia Calvet. L’expedient feia referència a unes acusacions contra la consellera de Drets Socials, Mònica Martínez Bravo, a qui havia atribuït responsabilitats en el cas de la Direcció General d’Atenció a la Infància i l’Adolescència (DGAIA). Segons Castellà, després d’analitzar les al·legacions presentades, la comissió ha entès que les declaracions quedaven emparades per la llibertat d’expressió.

Facts Only

* The Parliament's Statute commission concluded that Sílvia Orriols and Joan Garriga lightly violated the code of conduct.
* The matter is now before the parliamentary table to decide on a sanction.
* The violations fall under Article 7 of the code, requiring an exemplary and respectful attitude by deputies.
* In the case of Orriols, the investigation stemmed from statements against ERC deputy Najat Driouech concerning the presence in Parliament.
* For Garriga, the commission considered two infractions: calling President Lluís Companys an "assassin" during a spokesperson meeting and accusing the PSOE of spending public funds on drugs and prostitutes in May 2025.
* The investigation against Vox deputy Júlia Calvet was archived.
* The archived case involved accusations against Minister Mònica Martínez Bravo regarding responsibilities at the Directorate General for Child and Adolescent Care (DGAIA).
* The commission determined that the statements concerning Martínez Bravo were excused by freedom of expression.

Executive Summary

The commission of the Parliament's Statute concluded that the President of Aliança Catalana, Sílvia Orriols, and the spokesperson for Vox, Joan Garriga, lightly violated the chamber's code of conduct. The Parliamentary table must now decide on imposing a sanction and its nature. The President of the commission, Toni Castellà (Junts), explained that both cases fall under Article 7 of the code, which requires deputies to maintain an exemplary and respectful attitude in their functions. Regarding Orriols, the case arose from statements made against ERC deputy Najat Driouech, accusing her of "normalizing misogyny and Islamic fundamentalism" while speaking in Parliament. For Garriga, the commission considered two minor infractions: classifying the President of the Generalitat, Lluís Companys, as an "assassin" during a spokesperson's meeting, and making statements in a May 2025 plenary session accusing the PSOE of spending public money on "drugs and prostitutes." Separately, the commission archived the case against Vox deputy Júlia Calvet, which concerned accusations against the Minister of Social Rights, Mònica Martínez Bravo, regarding responsibilities within the Directorate General for Child and Adolescent Care (DGAIA). The commission found that the statements concerning Martínez Bravo were excused by freedom of expression.

Full Take

The process demonstrates a mechanism where conduct is assessed against established standards, but the application of those standards highlights a tension between upholding institutional decorum and protecting fundamental rights like freedom of expression. The decision to treat specific speech—such as accusations involving political figures or public spending—as permissible under Article 7 illustrates a complex negotiation over the boundaries of public discourse within legislative bodies. The fact that separate cases resulted in light infractions for some and archival for others suggests an uneven application of disciplinary measures, where the context surrounding the statements (e.g., expression vs. decorum) significantly alters the outcome. This pattern raises questions about which elements of conduct are prioritized: formal procedural respect or expressive liberty. Who ultimately defines what constitutes "exemplary" behavior versus protected speech? Furthermore, the deferral to the parliamentary table for sanctions introduces a layer of political contestation over the interpretation of the code itself. What historical precedent governs the balance between an official's right to speak and the institution's need for order? What are the long-term implications for accountability when subjective interpretations of freedom of expression are invoked to excuse actions that might otherwise warrant review?