Power vs. People 

  The Constitutional Court started hearings on November 24 in the President vs. Parliament case, challenging the constitutionality of the Verkhovna Rada's moratorium on housing, municipal, and public transport rate hikes.

According to Vladyslav Nosov, the President's Permanent Representative to the court, the law was enacted in response to the Cabinet's attempt to institute a 100% increase in housing and utility rates and is to be regarded primarily in terms of competence - in other words, whether Parliament had the right to pass a law infringing on the rights of enterprises rendering housing and utility services without recompensing the inevitable losses. And the latter are estimated at some Hr 800 million that should have been envisaged in the budget program as such compensation and which the Verkhovna Rada did not do.

"This is faulty logic," The Day was told by parliamentary committee chairman Yevhen Marchuk. Below is an account of what Mr. Marchuk had further to say on the subject.

"The President's submission to the Constitutional Court with regard to the constitutionality of the Verkhovna Rada's moratorium on housing and utility rates was programmed by the logic of political developments in Ukraine.

"The Chief Executive is not only unable to ensure timely redemption of arrears on social payments (and the moratorium is effective until such redemption is made), but also tries to use the Constitutional Court to neutralize Parliament's attempt to secure citizen's constitutional right to timely wages and salaries.

"The President's allegation about Verkhovna Rada's is exceeding its powers can only cause raised eyebrows. Any lawyer will easily refute it. Suffice it to refer to Article 48 of the Constitution which reads that every citizen has the right to have sufficient livelihood for himself and his family. The Guarantor of the Constitution must adhere to the Fundamental Law and not pester the Constitutional Court with irrelevant and immaterial referrals. Of course, one might interpret Mr. Kuchma's action as his desire to use it to help Ukraine receive the EFF loan. The memorandum signed by Premier Pustovoitenko and NBU Governor Yushchenko with IMF is known to contains a clause requiring the populace to pay 100% higher housing and utility fees. However, Presidential Adviser Anatoly Halchynsky - and the President - had to recognize the need to make corrections in this document due to the financial crisis. Apparently, social protection of the populace should be uppermost in the government's mind, and that EFF must be adjusted precisely to this end. Yet the President's motive is somewhat different.

"First, the Chief Executive, pretending to combat "Parliament's social expansion," tries to continue to ignore the legislature's decision, using a well-tested tool, the Constitutional Court. The President's veto did not work, so the next step was refer the case to court.

"Secondly, the thesis about Verkhovna Rada "exceeding its competence" is being tried once again. This was a natural response by the President to Parliament's attempt to strengthen its oversight over the executive.

"Thirdly, the President made it quite clear that he is for consistently raising the housing and utility rates and he does not seem to worry about people having no money to pay them. Here we have absurd logic. Costs are planned to be further increased and everyone concerned is only too well aware that arrears on housing and municipal payments will continue to grow. In fact, the executive provide statistics showing that 40-50% of these services are paid for monthly. So we raise the costs until they reach 150% or 200% every month and then people will stop paying. We raise public transport fares several times and people will stop using public transport. We might as well stop eating and, in the words of Zhvanetsky (a popular Odesa humorist - Ed.), ease the strain on the ground.

"This is faulty logic. Parliament imposed a moratorium, a temporary ban, on increasing housing and utility fees until all arrears on wages, pensions, and other social payments are redeemed. Parliament is not interfering in the Cabinet's domain. Parliament is trying to make the executive fulfill its direct constitutionally defined obligations. After all, no one is applying to the Constitutional Court to hear the President for ignoring the requirements set forth in Article 48 of the Constitution, saying that every citizen has the right to sufficient livelihood for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothes, and housing. Although maybe somebody should."

Compiled by Tetiana SHULHACH, The Day