The parliamentary opposition’s decision to ask for the Constitutional Court’s opinion on the package of laws for which the Government assumed responsibility on April 2 created uncertainty in society and the business community, said Democratic MP Nicolae Ciubuc. The vice president of the Democratic Party considers the opposition should have first of all used the possibility of submitting a no-confidence motion. The MP stated his opinions in a public debate entitled “Assumption of responsibility by the Government: controversies, effects, solutions”, organized by IPN News Agency.
“As regards the assumption of responsibility and the Constitutional Court’s decision, I do not want to debate or discuss this issue as it is a definitive decision that states particular things and is presumably an absolutely legal decision. The arguments provided by the Constitutional Court refer primarily to procedural aspects,” stated Nicolae Ciubuc.
He noted that after the Government assumed responsibility, the opposition could file a no-confidence motion, but it didn’t. There is thus a dose of subjectivism here.
“We should admit that we experienced such a situation when the Government assumed responsibility and could not present that law in Parliament, for the first time. From legal viewpoint, probably with a particular doze of subjectivism, it is an opinion given that the MPs of the parliamentary majority stated their support for that law. That procedure refers to the possibility offered by the parliamentary legal framework to the opposition to learn about that assumption and to come with a reaction, and we didn’t see their reaction. That reaction should have been formulated based on a no-confidence motion. They followed the constitutional path, invoking the three reasons that, consequently, generated more problems to the business community and uncertainty in society,” stated the MP.
On April 13, the Constitutional Court ruled that the April 2 law on the institution of measures to support the citizens and entrepreneurial activities during the state of emergency, for which the Government assumed responsibility, was adopted with violations of the constitutional provisions and is unconstitutional.
The debate “Assumption of responsibility by the Government: controversies, effects, solutions” was the 128th installment of the series of debates “Developing political culture through public debates” that are supported by the Hanns Seidel Foundation of Germany.