It would be better that the Parliament consults the Venice Commission regarding the laws of justice and to take it into account, former Constitutional Court Chairman Augustin Zegrean, former MP said, adding that it would be ‘bad’ if the European experts’ opinion is negative, this being most probably the reason for abandoning this option.
Zegrean says the amendments to the laws of justice by the special committee chaired by Florin Iordache, which includes senators and deputies, is not unconstitutional, the bad issues are somewhere else, ziare.com informs.
“Normally, every legal committee in both chambers had to solve the problem, but because it was on a draft legislative proposal drawn up by lawmakers, there is nothing wrong with setting up a special commission. Similar situations were met in the past, for example the Land Fund Act was made by a joint commission and a single report was drawn up, with which the two chambers of parliament were notified (in 2013 too there was a joint commission on Rosia Montana). The precedent existed, the regulations do not ban this formula, mix committees can be set up in various fields, this is possible, it is a practice. This is not the bad thing, it’s bad that those who have drawn the draft did not assume it and did not promote it further. Why do they hide things, anyway everyone knows it is a draft coming from the Government? Why did they take it over, I do not know, they probably did not agree with what came from the Government, and those in the Government were upset,” Augustin Zegrean told ziare.com on Wednesday morning, before the Constitutional Court has announced the decision on the challenges by the Opposition on the setting up of the special commission led by Florin Iordache.
Asked about the unexpected amendment to the Chamber of Deputies’ regulation, by which the amendments are not debated in plenary session (voted on Wednesday and published by the Official Gazette one hour after the vote) Augustin Zegrean said that this is contrary to the spirit of the Constitution.
“This an old story too. I was MP in the first Parliament, as Senator, in 1990. I drew up the rules of the joint meetings, about the same rules are still in place. When I returned to Parliament in 2004 in the Chamber of Deputies, I was amazed to find out that nothing was being discussed by the plenum. They only read the committee’s report and move on to the final vote, although the Constitution says otherwise. Normally, the plenary session is meant to debate the bills by articles, any legislative proposal should be debated. This constitution reads the regulations should be in this direction. Not only the amendments, but the articles should be debated and voted by the plenum sitting, this is the parliamentary system,” the former Chairman of the Constitutional Court said.