On 5th February 2008 the Constitutional Court of Ukraine [CCU] rejected an appeal by 102 parliamentary deputies to re-examine the constitutionality of law No 2222 of 8th December 2004 "On Amendments to the Constitution of Ukraine".
Law No2222, which diluted the authority of the president, was passed at the height of the Orange Revolution by over 400 votes in parliament. What is often overlooked is that discontent about excessive presidential powers had been growing rapidly in the early years of the first decade of this century, both in parliament and throughout the country.
In 2008 the CCU judges were entirely satisfied that the December 2004 changes were a valid part of the country's constitution. Their official ruling included this: "The position of the law on introduction of changes to the Constitution of Ukraine, [is that], on gaining validity, [it] becomes an integral component of the Constitution of Ukraine ...and the law's function is exhausted.. ". "The decision of the Constitutional Court is final", they concluded.
Last Friday, the CCU made a final, final decision, overturning the 2008 'final' decision and declared that law No 2222 unconstitutional after all, returning the country to the 1996 Constitution.
p.s. Among school children, a lie told with the fingers crossed 'doesn't count'.
p.p.s When the representative audience on last Friday's Savik Shuster show were asked what kind of government they would prefer, 72% chose parliamenary/presidential - 28% chose a presidential/parliamentary..
Yes a very interesting summary.
ReplyDeleteLet’s not forget the events of 2007. To a large extent the events being played out today harp back to the events on 2007 when Yushchenko unconstitutionally dismissed Ukraine's parliament. the International community look on whilst Ukraine’s constitutional rights were being violated, They turned a blind eye to Yushchenko's illegal interference with the operation and independence of Ukraine's Constitutional Court.
They are doing the same.
Ukraine has taken a backward step as a result of the October 1 CCU decision and in doing so has created a constitutional quagmire.
Both the parliament and the President were elected under the provisions of the 2004 amended constitution, If the 2004 constitution is no longer valid then both no longer hold claim to a legitimate mandate.
The CCU claimed that the amendments were nullified due to a technicality in the way the amendments were implemented, This is in spite of the act that a constitutional majority of the previous parliament approved the amendments twice over and as you say this decision was backed by the Constitutional Court on previous occasions.
The Parliament no has only a four year term of office. This means they are up for election next year. Not 2012. I understand that Lytvyn wants to emend the constitution to extend the parliaments term of office and as such his own position.
hat would be preferable would be if the parliament re-enacted the 2004 amendments and then argued their case for further amendments as opposed to taking the ill-considered back door approach of constitutional revolving doors.
If they don't then there is no other alternative but to hold fresh parliamentary and presidential elections next year.
But somehow I do not see this happening do you.
Democracy is sadly lost in Ukraine.
Such is the legacy left behind by Victor Yushchenko who should held responsible for the current situation Ukraine now finds itself in. Yushchenko betrayed Ukraine and undermined its democratic development. Ukraine could not have had chosen a worst President then Yushchenko and the jury is still deliberating on Yanukovych who will be in office for many more years to come.
An interesting diatribe from the Office of the President seeking to justify the nullification of the 2004 amendments can be found <a href="http://www.mfa.gov.ua/czechia/czech/news/detail/45956.htm>here</a>
ReplyDeleteThe issue not address by their article is the question of the President's mandate.
I am not sure where I read it but at the time there when the amendments went through there were comments that Yanukoych would seek to restore Presidential authority once Yushchenko had lost office.
The power that has been transferred to the Office of the President is in effect a Constitutional Coup.
Yanukovych was not elected to hold office under the provisions of the 1996 Constitution and as such he can no longer claim to have a legitimate mandate.
Previously Yanukovych had supported the proposed amendments which were seen by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe as a positive step.
Obviously the could not get support to amend the constitution so he opted for the backdoor approach.
This issue will plague Yanukoych's term of office.
An interesting diatribe from the Office of the President seeking to justify the nullification of the 2004 amendments can be found here
ReplyDeleteThe issue not address by their article is the question of the President's mandate.
I am not sure where I read it but at the time there when the amendments went through there were comments that Yanukoych would seek to restore Presidential authority once Yushchenko had lost office.
The power that has been transferred to the Office of the President is in effect a Constitutional Coup.
Yanukovych was not elected to hold office under the provisions of the 1996 Constitution and as such he can no longer claim to have a legitimate mandate.
Previously Yanukovych had supported the proposed amendments which were seen by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe as a positive step.
Obviously the could not get support to amend the constitution so he opted for the backdoor approach.
This issue will plague Yanukoych's term of office.