Presidential adviser Maxim Lebedinski said the situation when the President of the Republic of Moldova Igor Dodon could be suspended from office for a period appeared after, in one of its judgements, the Constitutional Court actually assumed the powers of Parliament. The Court held that the CC judgements form a whole together with the text of the Constitution and its interpretation decisions are equal to the text of the Constitution and the problem derived from here. He made such statements in the public debate “Suspension of President: legality, institutional blockage, political confrontation” that was the 94th installment of the series of debates “Developing political culture by public debates” staged by IPN News Agency and Radio Moldova.
“You will find no normative document or a sentence in the Constitution saying the Constitutional Court’s judgments are equal to the text of a constitutional law. There are only two methods of amending the Constitution – through Parliament and through referendum that is to involve the citizens of the Republic of Moldova. Thus, we understand that the Court took on particular powers that do not belong to it and could not belong to it. Later the Court extended the President’s oath that says the President is actually obliged to guarantee the sovereignty and to obey the Constitution and the laws of the Republic of Moldova. But the court, in one of its judgments, said the President is obliged to obey its judgments and any violation of these decisions is a violation of the oath,” noted Maxim Lebedinski, adding the CC every time widened its powers by own judgements.
The adviser noted the example of Belgium is the only one in the world history, but what is important is that the king of Belgium consented to his suspension from office and to having that act signed by the Premier instead of him for those religious reasons that ran counter to the interests of the state. The case of Belgium cannot be compared with that of Moldova. “Respectively, the Constitutional Court has absolutely no legal right to base its decision on particular precedents, not speaking about examples from other states. If we refer to the main problem, this case didn’t appear following the President’s refusal to name these two ministers. The problem appeared when Article 98, paragraph 6 was interpreted or even earlier,” stated Maxim Lebedinski.
He also said that by its request to the CC to interpret the Constitution, the Government admitted that the impeachment is not initiated for the reason that the President enjoys major support in society. When a President is obliged to act against his will and principles, this cannot be replaced by someone else or any person holding a public post should be suspended if their acts run counter to the interests of the government or another party.
Asked why he still holds office if it is considered that the President violated the Constitution, Maxim Lebedinschi said that if the Government or Parliament think an offense was committed, the President should be held accountable. “If it is believed it was a violation and he should be dismissed for this violation, the government should initiate the dismissal procedure,” he noted.
The debate “Suspension of President: legality, institutional blockage, political confrontation” forms part of the series of debates held by IPN News Agency and Radio Moldova as part of the project “Developing political culture by public debates” that is supported by the Hanns Seidel Foundation of Germany.
