After the proposed changes to the Constitution
There is a danger that the Constitutional Court will turn into an “Appeals” bureau, lawyers warn
Changes in the SJC require a Grand National Assembly
If the proposed changes to the Constitution are accepted, Bulgaria may end up with two prime ministers, two parliaments, deputies and ministers with multiple citizenships, lawyers told Trud news. Constitutionalists believe that the introduction of the so-called individual complaint will turn the Constitutional Court into a “complaints” bureau, and the reason is that nowhere is it said on which issues it is permissible for legal entities to appeal to the Constitutional Court.
The changes made to the basic law provide for the parliament to work with an official cabinet and go on vacation a month before the elections are held. The dissolution of the old National Assembly takes place with the constitution of the newly elected one. “It is not clear when the new National Assembly is considered constituted. At the moment, the president by decree determines from which date it is dissolved”. Thus, Associate Professor of Constitutional Law Nataliya Kiselova explained why it is quite possible to end up with two parliaments. And we may get two prime ministers because there are seven days in which an acting prime minister is appointed, but it is not clear whether he has just been appointed or has already been appointed. The constitution provides that the caretaker government and the prime minister are appointed simultaneously. It is not known what will happen if the National Assembly fails to elect a caretaker government on the proposal of the designated caretaker prime minister, Kiselova also commented.
The doctor of constitutional law, Borislav Tsekov, is adamant that changes in the SJC require a Grand National Assembly.
Professor Ognyan Gerdzhikov asked who will determine what moral qualities magistrates in the SJC should possess.
Constitutional law professor Plamen Kirov warned that each parliament will be able to narrow or expand the range of cases for so-called individual appeals to the SC. According to him, the conditions should be stipulated in the Constitution itself.
Predictions are that there will be fierce disputes over the proposed changes, which the three parties proposing will be considered in a legal committee as early as the beginning of the autumn session of the parliament. It is written in the constitution that proposals are considered by the National Assembly no earlier than one month and no later than three months after their submission. It is already understood that a fast-track procedure for adopting the proposals is impossible because 180 votes are not secured. If the texts receive less than three-fourths or 180 deputies, but not less than two-thirds or 160 of the votes of all people’s representatives, the proposal can be considered again after no earlier than two and no later for five months.
Mihail Mikov, lawyer: The changes are a serious attack on national sovereignty
The proposed changes to the Constitution are a serious attack on national sovereignty. It is suggested that in relation to the MPs and the ministers, there should not be that requirement from the Tarnovo Constitution that they should only be Bulgarian citizens. This is grossly insulting to national self-esteem.
They are afraid that the chief prosecutor will be elected by the National Assembly, because then the responsibility will be clear. Therefore, an indirect approach is taken – a prosecutor’s collegium is introduced, in which the majority is elected by the National Assembly, it elects the chief prosecutor and deals with the recruitment of prosecutors. Thus, the prosecutor’s office will become a political function.
All this is done quietly and meekly, without explanation. It is noteworthy that the same people in 2015 promised flowers and roses after such a change.
Prof. Ognyan Gerdzhikov, former chairman of the 39th National Assembly and former acting prime minister, to “Trud news”: If Bulgaria has problems, the problem with the Constitution is in the last place
First of all, I want to say that if Bulgaria has problems, the problem with the Constitution is in the last place. There can be no other minor problem after it. It is as if a blow in the air for the hijacking of attention, because there is nothing really imperative to be changed in the current Constitution. There are much more pressing things that need to be done in the country. This first.
Second. Thinking about it, I can’t understand why the national holiday should be changed. If that’s all they care about, this is one of the issues that could be resolved with a referendum. But I personally don’t see any rational sense for this thing. If the US had set us free on March 3rd, no one would have thought to change the national holiday. But since Russia did it, let’s change it now. I really don’t understand this thing.
Third. I also don’t see any pressing need to make changes to who should be the caretaker prime minister. There have been several office cabinets in the last 5-6 years, I don’t see anything that has happened that is catastrophic because there was an office cabinet constructed in this way. They worked very well in general, even in my opinion, Galab Donev’s office has many merits, so it can only be given a plus sign. So this change is also self-serving.
Fourth. The dual citizenship of the people’s representatives is a delicate issue, I do not have a definite understanding of it.
Fifth. The separation of the two colleges in the SJC is also a conjunctural change. We are champions of change, we are an ever-changing country. It doesn’t work like that.
Sixth. The idea of the parliament appointing more members of the prosecutor’s collegium in the SJC is such a fabrication, it may or may not be self-indulgence, but at least it is artistic…
Seventh. In addition to acting magistrates, there should have been lawyers with high moral qualities in the SJC – who will determine the people with such qualities? They should probably be given a blood test and see who has high moral qualities by blood type…
Plamen Kirov, professor of constitutional law, to “Trud news”: A prerequisite is being created for two parliaments at the same time
The submitted texts for changes to the Constitution are quite different from what was announced at the PPDB press conference. But it is not the ideas and intentions released into the public space that matter, but what is written on paper, i.e. what is submitted to the National Assembly as a project.
Some texts are a prerequisite for having two parliaments at the same time, which have entered into a mandate and they could exercise their powers according to the constitution, but with different content – at least in terms of introducing a state of emergency, as in the Constitutional Court, this is indicated as a reason to extend the mandate of the current National Assembly. This is quite a serious problem, since we have two representative national bodies that have significant powers and that can go to war (figuratively speaking in the exercise of these powers).
Next, there is a legal nonsense about an acting prime minister. If the president appoints the president of the CC as ex-officio prime minister, he immediately falls into incompatibility, which is especially drastic when it comes to constitutional judges, and his mandate as a constitutional judge should be terminated immediately. Can a magistrate be prime minister at all, since Bulgarian magistrates are depoliticized? The judicial power is a non-political power according to the constitutional principle.
It is also strange to limit the powers of the prosecutor’s office to participate in administrative cases, since the prosecutor’s office is the defender of the interests of the state and, if it is deprived of the right to attack illegal acts of the government, who could attack a decree of the IC before the Supreme Court ? We know that the Court of Justice requires, in order to allow such a case to be considered, a legal interest. Who must prove a legal interest? This is a curtailment of prosecutorial powers that exist in all democratic countries.
What would happen if the three who are on the list of possible Prime Ministers refuse to take this position?
A big problem is also the text that allows dual citizenship of people’s representatives. Why should only they be able to have dual citizenship? Why shouldn’t the president, why shouldn’t judges and prosecutors either?
Borislav Tsekov, doctor of constitutional law, to “Trud news”: Nothing will change with the restructuring of the SJC
The project in terms of content is quite simple against the background of bombastic requests. There is much to be desired from a legal and technical point of view. With few exceptions, the proposed changes have no potential to improve anything substantial in the functioning of the state. Three groups of proposals stand out: useful, useless (and partly inadmissible) and harmful. The benefits relate to reducing presidential discretion in appointing a caretaker government. This is necessary because of the deviations of recent years, when caretaker governments were turned into a rubber stamp for de facto presidential rule, which the Constitution does not provide for. The proposal does not change the balance of powers, but strengthens the established parliamentary form and the National Assembly’s control over the executive power. Proposals that affect the judiciary are useless from the point of view of the expectations of citizens and businesses for quality administration of justice. Nothing will change with a restructuring of the SJC and shortening the mandates of the “big three”. The only effect will be that the changes create an opportunity for the government majority to take control of the judiciary. The idea of two separate councils – judicial and prosecutorial – requires the Supreme Court.
The suggestion that MPs, ministers, president and vice president can also be Bulgarian citizens who also have foreign citizenship is harmful. In the US, only the president and vice president are required to have American citizenship. In Australia, persons who also have foreign citizenship cannot be MPs and ministers. And these are countries created by immigrants. Why is it important for them not to entrust the highest levels of power to dual citizens, but for Bulgaria it is not important? Because we are native Bantustan?
Velislav Velichkov, “Justice for everyone”, before “Trud news”: The chief prosecutor not only remains, but also becomes the head of the supreme prosecutor’s offices
We have a completely different opinion on how a caretaker government should be formed and we will express it if a substantive debate begins. There is no need now, as we have no proposals in this part which is outside the judiciary.
In our opinion, there should not be a position of chief prosecutor at all. We are disturbed by the fact that the chief prosecutor not only remains, but also becomes the head of the supreme prosecutor’s offices – cassational and administrative, and will lead the meetings of the prosecutor’s council.
We are not worried about the fact that the parliamentary quota will also elect him, because this is the state prosecution that must bear responsibility in a parliamentary republic and before the parliament. It is not the arbitrator, it is a party to the process who should be on an equal footing with the bar, not advantaged by it. Until now, the Prosecution College was completely encapsulated and all its members were chosen from a list given by each succeeding Attorney General and they all chose the next Attorney General on the recommendation of politicians or the previous Attorney General. This is the vice of the prosecutor’s college – the barracks and blind obedience and servitude to every chief prosecutor, which deforms the prosecutor’s office. Even the latest case in Stara Zagora proves it. There it will turn out that it is not the court that is to blame, but the prosecutor, who did not do his job. These people are used to not working. They deprofessionalized!
2023-08-02 11:56:03
#Bulgaria #dawns #prime #ministers #parliaments #Labor
