Will Belarus go for a referendum to expand powers to Constitutional Court?
On Monday, the president proposed to expand the powers of the judges at the Constitutional Court by allowing them to draft and carry out an expertise of legislation. Valiantsin Sukala, the Chairman of the Supreme Court and Viktar Kamyankou, the chairman of the Supreme Economic Court, have already voiced their backing to this initiative. But in the view of Valery Fadzeeu, a former deputy chairman of the Constitutional Court, judges of the Constiutional Court are not entitled to this by the current Constitution.
“If we read Article 116 in the Constitution of Belarus, we will see that the function of the Constitutional Court is to ensure a constitutional control. It means making sure that the passed laws comply with the Constitution. That’s it”, he said.
In his view, in order to allow the judges of the Constitutional Court to both draft and carry out an expertise of legislation in the process of drafting, it is necessary to amend the Constitution. Alternatively, one of the articles should be rewritten through a referendum.
“This paragraph, containing Article 116, can be changed only through a referendum. Another option is to pass a new Constitution, for example, by the parliament. Then, those regulations can be circumvented”, Fadzeyeu said.
Mr Miklashevich, the new chairman of the Constitutional Court, is also proposing to entitle the Constitutional Court to the power of punishing the officials that violated the country’s main law. According to Valery Fadzeyeu, this will turn the court into a body of disciplinary prosecution.
“They are raising the question about the responsibility. I don’t know the goals of it, but I think this is not a business of the Constitutional Court. I should not be a certain body of disciplinary prosecution”.
In the words of the expert, it would be better to allow ordinary citizens to approach the Constitutional Court.
“There is no institution of the constitutional complaint so that citizens could be able to approach the Constitutional Court directly. This institution exists in the other countries. Government agencies do not file complaints to the Constitutional Court, so the judges do not have much work”, Fadzeyeu says.
But in the view of Valiantsin Shuklin, one of the acting judges of the Constitutional Court, no referendum should be required in order to allow the judges to take part in legislation drafting. A resolution of the House of Representatives would do.
“Lawmakers have the right to expand the powers of the Constitutional Court. They could simply introduce amendments to the Code of Courts and the Status of Judges. And that would be it”, Shuklin maintains.
According to the judge, the Constitutional Court is not going to take up a responsibility of punishing the public servants that violated the Constitution.
“We have enough bodies that do this job. There is the president who appoints and dismisses the government officials. I don’t think that the Constitutional Court can interfere with the competence of the president”, he said.
Shuklin believes it is sufficient for citizens to approach the Constitutional Court not directly but through the relevant official instances.
“There are six bodies that have the right to file proposals with the Constitutional Court. Citizens and any other legal entities can submit their proposals through these six bodies. This is a regulation which creates big enough opportunities for citizens to approach the Constitutional Court”.
In the view of the judge, the Constitutional Court receives little complaints because the organizations that are entitled to do so lack professionals in order to determine what should be filed with the Constitutional Court and what should not.
