A summary analysis of draft laws on broadening the powers of the sacked Government on
providing additional functions interim government of interim Prime Minister
adopted by the Parliament on 05.03.2013
providing additional functions interim government of interim Prime Minister
adopted by the Parliament on 05.03.2013
1.Conclusion
European constitutional practice approach confirms that ousted government may exercise only part of the functions that government has invested with the confidence of Parliament. Government no longer govern resignation, only managing current affairs, that given existing policies and lead central government under the status quo. It may not initiate new projects and laws and can not issue ordinances. Article 103 (2) of the Constitution and its interpretation of the Constitutional Court dismissed the Government confirmed only confer powers to implement programs and policies and management of central government. The bill on the counter art sacked widening government powers. 103 (2) of the Constitution. The most important conclusion with respect to widening government wrongly dismissed is because enlarging powers unjustified and excessive powers pose a threat to parliamentary democracy and democratic institution for ensuring the legitimacy of the government. Government powers invested qualitative difference and dismissed the Government can not be reduced because the threat qualitatively in terms of parliamentary democracy in Moldova. Only a quantitative difference tasks pose a strong incentive to reduce institutional and democratic representative functions of Parliament because that government would not need, in essence, the confidence first.
Another critical aspect is the reason or judgment given situation due to widening government powers dismissed or substantially reduced qualitative difference compared to government supported by Parliament. The government dismissed and the Government resigned (in the interim until the new Parliament) are two qualitatively different situations. If deposed government in essence a temporary state until the new government, broadening powers can be seen with suspicion justified the democratic process and democratic legitimacy. Just crisis or very exceptional circumstances may justify the development of additional functions of the Government absolutely sacked for a period limited. Obviously, if the real reason for expanding government powers are dismissed purely political considerations, this extension of powers is nothing but undermine the democratic institutions of accountability of government institutions of the people - the Parliament.
Bills passed by the transparency principle decision within a period of only a few days and without consultation with stakeholders.
2.Proposal
Avoid promulgating the Law no. 135 of 30.04.2013 and no. 126 of 25.4.2013 which amends Act no. 64 of 31.05.1990 on the Government.
European constitutional practice approach confirms that ousted government may exercise only part of the functions that government has invested with the confidence of Parliament. Government no longer govern resignation, only managing current affairs, that given existing policies and lead central government under the status quo. It may not initiate new projects and laws and can not issue ordinances. Article 103 (2) of the Constitution and its interpretation of the Constitutional Court dismissed the Government confirmed only confer powers to implement programs and policies and management of central government. The bill on the counter art sacked widening government powers. 103 (2) of the Constitution. The most important conclusion with respect to widening government wrongly dismissed is because enlarging powers unjustified and excessive powers pose a threat to parliamentary democracy and democratic institution for ensuring the legitimacy of the government. Government powers invested qualitative difference and dismissed the Government can not be reduced because the threat qualitatively in terms of parliamentary democracy in Moldova. Only a quantitative difference tasks pose a strong incentive to reduce institutional and democratic representative functions of Parliament because that government would not need, in essence, the confidence first.
Another critical aspect is the reason or judgment given situation due to widening government powers dismissed or substantially reduced qualitative difference compared to government supported by Parliament. The government dismissed and the Government resigned (in the interim until the new Parliament) are two qualitatively different situations. If deposed government in essence a temporary state until the new government, broadening powers can be seen with suspicion justified the democratic process and democratic legitimacy. Just crisis or very exceptional circumstances may justify the development of additional functions of the Government absolutely sacked for a period limited. Obviously, if the real reason for expanding government powers are dismissed purely political considerations, this extension of powers is nothing but undermine the democratic institutions of accountability of government institutions of the people - the Parliament.
Bills passed by the transparency principle decision within a period of only a few days and without consultation with stakeholders.
2.Proposal
Avoid promulgating the Law no. 135 of 30.04.2013 and no. 126 of 25.4.2013 which amends Act no. 64 of 31.05.1990 on the Government.
Here is the integral analysis: http://www.credo.md/site-doc/CReDO_GuvDemFinal_v2(5).pdf
