The Eldiario media has taken up the different opinions that exist around this debate on this topic.

About a month after the state of alarm, the Interior Minister, Fernando Grande-Marlaska, sent a kind of guide to the autonomous communities to unify the criteria for the application of Article 36.6 of the Citizen Security Act (known as the Mordaza Law). This article determines how to punish "authority or its agents to disobey". In this order, Marlaska asks the police to describe "the attitude of the defendant": if he is a subordinate he should not be indicated, but if he is "despicable, ill-educated" or insulting, the police should write it down in the minutes.

The criteria must be collected beforehand by law cannot be regulated by the guidelines

El medio Eldiario contains the following words from Jacobo Dopico, professor of Criminal Law at the Carlos III University of Madrid: (To impose the penalty) "The criteria must be collected by law before the actions are carried out. They cannot be regulated through the ministerial guidelines. It is precisely this law that leaves little room for innovation: in each infringement the law can be applied at the lowest, medium or high levels, and the change of degree criteria are already established. None of these criteria has anything to do with the attitude of the subject".

Fines are decided by government delegations

According to Eldiario, the police make a proposal in the minutes, but then the government delegations set the criteria and determine the amount of the fine. And the government delegations are overwhelmed by the proposals for sanctions sent by the police.

The State Attorney presents two reports questioning this interpretation of the Moorish Law

The State Attorney has submitted two reports which raise doubts about the implementation of this law. Attorney General Consuelo Castro Rey made her first report on 2 April, in which she states that the imposition of a disobedience penalty necessarily implies that the agent of the authority makes a concrete and individualized request to the citizen and that the citizen is not served by the citizen who receives it.

This explanation of disobedience does not coincide with the one being applied by the Ministry of the Interior. The Moorish Law cites in its article 36.6 disobedience, citing "authorities or agents". The Ministry of the Interior has referred to this "authority" to punish directly, for example, someone who goes down the street, even if he does not disobey a specific police order. The Ministry of the Interior considers that the Government itself that has brought out the Royal Decree is the "authority" referred to in the Moorish Law and that the rules it has issued have been duly notified to the citizens, so that its non-compliance is a mild act of disobedience.

The Ministry of the Interior asked the State Attorney to prepare a second report clarifying the points indicated in the first report. The second report, which arrived on 6 April, ratifies Consuelo Castro what was said in the first report and gives the Department of Interior the following advice: "It is up to the agents to document in as much detail as possible their complaints and attacks." In response to this Council, the Department of the Interior issued a number of guidelines for the imposition of sanctions.

Grande-Marlaska: One month after criticizing the Morbid Law generalize dubious use

The PSOE is strongly using the Moorish Law promulgated by the pp, but has shown itself against it until the state of alarm was declared. Minister of the Interior, Grande-Marlaska, said a month earlier that "this is a failed law and that the government has as a priority to repeal it and replace it with a law of Citizen Security".

Virtually all parties, including the PSOE, have long resorted to the Mordaza Law and the Constitutional Court still has to rule on them, on the law that once established the pp.