Head of State and Democratic Party of Socialists (DPS) Milo Djukanovic will try to get an opinion from the Venice Commission (VK) on the Law on the President, which would serve as a cover for not promulgating that act, after the parliament votes on it again.
This is what the vice-president of the Assembly and an official of the Movement for Change (PzP) told "Vijesti". Branka Bosniak.
She claims that the Supreme Court often gave different, politically colored opinions on similar issues, and adds that, "with due respect to the individuals who sit in that body, they professionally discredited themselves".
"Her opinion is not binding, and is usually obtained on a draft law. If they express an opinion on the already voted law, it will also be an unprecedented case and the result of the lobbying and political influence of the president of DPS, but they will be talking about them the most," says Bošnjak, who is one of the proponents of changes to the Law on the President.
According to the Constitution, the head of state is obliged to promulgate the re-voted law.
Đukanović's cabinet did not respond to "Vijesta" when asked if he would do so if the old-new parliamentary majority again adopts the changes. The majority parties have announced that they will do so.
Đukanović returned the law to the plenum because, among other things, he claims that it violates the Constitution and threatens the separation of powers. That is why on Wednesday he asked the Supreme Council, a body of the Council of Europe (CoE), for an urgent opinion on the law, stressing that the consequence of its re-voting could be the collapse of the constitutional order and universal legal values.
Related Articles
The source of "Vijesti" from the Secretariat of the VK explained that when she is asked for an urgent opinion, she does not follow the calendar of sessions, but tries to act on the request as soon as possible.
"At the beginning, the secretariat of the commission appoints the rapporteurs, who will then talk with the MPs of 'all colors', and perhaps with the Constitutional Court (US), but this is questionable since it is currently not in office. After the discussions are held, the opinion of the Supreme Court will follow, which, in the best case, can be expected in the period between 15 and 30 days from the submission of the request", the source states.
The opinion of the Supreme Court is non-binding and the state can ignore it, but lawyers consulted by "Vijesti" claim that it would not send a good message, given that, as they point out, the Supreme Court is a highly respected body in the European Union (EU).
The representative of Montenegro in the VC is the former Minister of Foreign Affairs Srdjan Darmanovic, but he cannot participate in a case from his country according to the Statute of the Supreme Court. It is an unwritten rule that a member does not even participate in discussions at the plenary session that concern his country.
Bosniak claims that it is obvious that Đukanović set out to radicalize political situations, manipulating, according to her, national feelings and trying to abuse citizens as "a shield for his unconstitutional actions and his position."
"Now he wants to abuse the Supreme Court for the same reason, and is trying to get an opinion through lobbying channels that would serve as a cover for further unconstitutional actions. The adopted law does not take away Đukanović's constitutional powers, but only prescribes in detail the procedure for granting the mandate and prevents his arbitrariness...", she assesses.
Some lawyers, the civil sector and parties claim that the changes to the law are against the Constitution. Because of this, the DPS and its former long-term coalition partners protested on Tuesday in Podgorica, demanding the withdrawal of the law, the return to the beginning of the process of selecting US judges and the calling of special elections.
The law on the president was also the topic of the parliamentary dialogue held on Wednesday, where party representatives did not make any progress towards solving the political and institutional crisis. While DPS and partners are demanding the withdrawal of the law, the old/new majority is calling on them to vote for the election of US judges at the end of the month.
Amendments to the law, initiated by the Democratic Front (DF), stipulate that the president is obliged to nominate a candidate who has the support of the majority of the total number of deputies. If there is no majority, the president submits the initiative for shortening the mandate to the parliament, and if the deputies do not vote for it, he is obliged to, after repeated consultations, propose a candidate "with dominant parliamentary support" for the mandate. This possibility exists even before the initiative for reduction.
According to the law, if the head of state fails to fulfill his duty regarding the appointment of a representative in order to protect the public interest, the candidate who has "the clear support of the majority of the total number of deputies" will be considered as the representative.
Bosniak: Include the initiative on the dismissal of Đukanović in the agenda
The Bosniak says that he expects that the Collegium of the President of the Assembly will soon be scheduled, at which the date of the session should be agreed upon, where the amendments to the Law on the President will be voted on again.
"We will ask that the agenda of that session include the initiative to initiate the procedure to determine whether the president violated the Constitution during the process of nominating a representative, which is the basis for his dismissal. But, unfortunately, for that we need the Constitutional Court, which does not have a quorum because the DPS does not want it precisely because their president could behave unconstitutionally and arrogantly. That is why they did not support any of the very credible candidates for membership in the US", says Bošnjak.
The DF together with the MPs of the old-new majority submitted this initiative on September 23, but the Speaker of the Parliament sent it back to them for revision, because, as she stated, it contained a combined proposal for two procedures (on violation of the Constitution and dismissal).
Bonus video:
