In a special meeting on October 19, the Cabinet approved the application to ascertain the circumstances that lead to the temporary removal of the President of the Republic of Moldova from office, in connection with the refusal to name the candidate for minister of defense proposed the second time, addressed to the Constitutional Court, IPN reports, with reference to a press release issued by the Government’s press service.
Following the judgment of October 17, 2017, by which the CC interpreted provisions of Article 98, par. (6), in accordance with Articles 1, 56, 91, 135 and 140 of the Constitution, the Government asked to ascertain the circumstances that lead to the temporary removal of the President of the Republic of Moldova from office and to announce the temporary removal so that the person who will hold the office on an interim basis names the candidate for minister of defense proposed by the Prime Minister.
The move is aimed at breaking the institutional impasse generated by the President by refusing to fulfill his constitutional obligation to name the candidate for minister of defense that was fielded again by the Premier.
“We have a situation when the President will be removed from office not for a period, but for a cause – to appoint the minister of defense. Moldova is a parliamentary republic and the President cannot cause institutional deadlocks and political instability,” said Prime Minister Pavel Filip.
On September 12, this year, the Premier proposed Eugen Sturza for the post of minister of defense to President Igor Dodon, but this rejected the candidate. The Premier fielded the same candidate again and this was rejected the second time. On September 19, 2017, the executive requested the Constitutional Court to clarify the actions that can be taken by the Prime Minister and the decisions that can be adopted by Parliament if the President rejects a candidate for minister two times.
In its October 17 decision, the CC provided that the President of the Republic of Moldova has the right to check the compatibility of the candidate proposed by the Prime Minister for a post, but does not have the right of veto on the Premier’s proposal. The President’s refusal to fulfill his constitutional obligation to name the candidate proposed again by the Premier is a serious violation of the constitutional obligations. Also, the President’s refusal to fulfill a constitutional obligation represents temporary incapacity to carry out this duty and justifies the temporary removal from office. In such a case, the post of President is held on an interim basis by the Speaker of Parliament or the Prime Minister.
