To declare a state of emergency, Parliament was to base its relevant decision on data that require the adoption of urgent measures by the authorities. Also, the decision to declare a state of emergency should be a last resort, in response to an exceptional danger implying that the ordinary measures or restrictions aimed at ensuring public safety, health and order are not sufficient. The given danger should be effective or imminent and its effects should engage the whole nation to the extent to which its existence is endangered, the president of the Constitutional Court Domnica Manole stated after the Court declared the Parliament decision to declare a state of emergency unconstitutional, IPN reports.
In a press briefing, Domnica Manole said that the CC in its decision noted that the declaring of a state of emergency is an exclusive prerogative of Parliament. At the same time, this power should be exercised with precaution given the impact it can have on the basic human rights. The Constitution does not offer Parliament sufficient instruments for collecting independently information about the eventual dangers that can seriously affect the functionality of the state or the ordinary life of the population.
The Government is the authority entrusted with the task of collecting information about the real situation in the country, including about eventual social dangers, and of assessing the necessity of declaring the state of emergency, as it implements the domestic and foreign policy of the state and administers public affairs. The President of the Republic of Moldova can also propose declaring a state of emergency if such a move is aimed, inter alia, at ensuring national security or public order.
This way, even if Parliament can declare a state of emergency, this power becomes active when the necessity of declaring a state of emergency is requested and appropriately argued by the competent public authority. Or the constitutional provisions are violated.
When adopting the challenged decision, Parliament examined the draft decision registered by MPs. The informative note to the draft decision, which occupies one page, makes reference to the COVID-19 incidence rate and the report presented by the Commission for Exceptional Situations. However, arguments to justify the duration of the state of emergency, which is the period of two months, were not provided.
Moreover, Parliament didn’t explain to what extent the ordinary powers of the executive are insufficient for overcoming the crisis situation and to what extent the augmentation of the powers of the executive can compensate for this deficiency.
The Court held that if the ordinary legal measures are sufficient, the declaring of a state of emergency and the obstructing of constitutional procedures are not necessary.
