At today’s session of the Supreme Court, based on the views presented by the representative of the Government of the Republic, I got the impression that the right to bind to a vote of confidence is unlimited for the government, said Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart, vice-chairman of the Riigikogu legal committee.
“The representative of the government said that it is the sole decision of the government, with which content and time frame the bill must be adopted, which in turn is a prerequisite for a vote of confidence. At the same time, it seems that the Riigikogu should not have the opportunity to speak, if the procedure should drag on or if it does not match the goals set by the government. The representative of the government even doubted whether the Supreme Court also has the possibility to intervene and give an assessment. This is a clear sign that they want to ignore the principle of separation of powers,” said Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart and expressed her surprise that the government’s arrogant attitude has already reached the Supreme Court.
“The State Court currently has an extraordinary opportunity to put limits on the vote of confidence,” he continued. “Until now, the principle has been that the issue of confidence can be used to resolve the impasse and in the event that the adoption of the draft is, in the opinion of the government, inevitable for the implementation of its policy. I see the need for the Supreme Court to explain more clearly what the necessity of the inevitable implementation of the policy means, and in which cases it is inevitable to link the bill with a vote of confidence, following the usual procedural process and to hold a meaningful debate.”
According to Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart, the government used the vote of confidence option as many as 21 times last year, which clearly shows that the solution intended for emergency situations has become an integral part of the road roller policy. “It is unacceptable that the government sets time frames for the parliament to process drafts, and if the procedure drags on, the draft will be immediately put to a vote of confidence. The role of the legislator is to hold a debate, to make the bill better in substance and to involve different interest groups if necessary. It is possible that then attention would have been paid to the fact that the law being processed by the Supreme Court is, in addition to procedural violations, also fundamentally unconstitutional. The chancellor of justice also referred to the latter at today’s court session,” said the representative of the Center Party.