The unfortunate spectacle of the mayor of Marinaleda leading, megaphone in hand, the assault to some supermarkets has generated several considerations about the prerogatives that the character holds by virtue of his status as an Andalusian parliamentarian. Traditionally, the statute of the deputies is composed of the following institutions: inviolability, immunity and privileges. Their origin is to be found in English parliamentarism and, in its modern conception, in the French Revolution. They arose as a means of guaranteeing the free exercise of the representative function of parliamentarians against the interference and arbitrary actions of the Crown. Already in the ancient Roman Republic, the plebeians succeeded in imposing a Magistracy to represent them: the tribunes of the plebs, endowed with a sacrosanct character to protect them from any physical harm.

The question that arises is whether these guarantees, fully justified from a historical point of view, are really necessary today or, on the contrary, have become mere exorbitant privileges that undermine the principle of equality before the law. In the first place, it does not seem appropriate to dispense with inviolability, understood as the legal irresponsibility of parliamentarians for the opinions expressed in parliamentary acts and for the votes cast in the exercise of their functions position. It is to ensure the free training of the will of the legislative body to which they belong through the freedom of expression of parliamentarians. Logically, it cannot cover those other manifestations exercised outside that parliamentary function, understood in a strict sense, even if the opinions formulated have a political content or purpose.

Parliamentary immunity is more questionable because it is not included in all legal systems and it is not an essential element for the free exercise of the parliamentary function. The immunity establishes a series of obstacles to the possibility of taking procedural action against the parliamentarian, protecting him/her against arrests and judicial processes that may lead to deprivation of liberty. The aim is to avoid being prevented, for political reasons, from attending the meetings of the chambers and, consequently, unduly altering their composition and functioning, by preventing attend . In a democratic system with an impartial and independent judiciary, it is inconceivable that judges would persecute a parliamentarian for political reasons.

Finally, the aforamiento gives the parliamentarian a special regional law , in such a way that he/she will be tried by a different judicial body than if he/she were an ordinary citizen. It is argued that the aforamiento allows criminal cases to be heard by courts with greater guarantees of independence or impartiality; the current configuration of the Judiciary in Spain makes this argument difficult to sustain.

The Statute of Autonomy of Andalusia, when regulating the status of its Deputies, includes these classic institutions. It refers to the inviolability for the opinions expressed in parliamentary acts and for the votes cast in the exercise of their mandate position. It also states that, during their term of office, they cannot be arrested for criminal acts committed in the territory of Andalusia, except in the case of flagrante delicto; this regulation of immunity is less broad than the one recognized by the Constitution for the Deputies and Senators of the Cortes Generales, since the corresponding authorization or request of the Andalusian Parliament is not required in order to indict or prosecute. It would then be possible that, in the event of a possible repetition of the assaults, the deputy would be arrested in the case of being caught at the time of the commission of the crime. Finally, a special regional law is recognized consisting of attributing the skill to decide on his indictment, imprisonment, prosecution and trial to the High Court of Justice of Andalusia and, outside the Andalusian territory, to the conference room of the Criminal Court of the Supreme Court.

In final, the correct understanding of parliamentary prerogatives is based on their radical consideration as guarantees that are granted for the exercise of a function, thus preventing them from becoming instruments that allow the representatives of the citizens to use them to evade their criminal responsibilities and carry out what they were intended to protect them from: abuse of power.