Unanimous hearing
Constitutional Court is deciding the destiny of political reform
There is such a notion in jurisprudence as adversarial system of law. But there was nothing of the sort when the Constitutional Court was hearing a political reform legitimacy case made out by 252 members of parliament. During the open-door session, all, including representatives of the Verkhovna Rada, the president, and the cabinet, spoke out for pronouncing Law No. 2222 unconstitutional. There was not a single defender of political reform in the courtroom.
It was possible to see the general state of affairs in the judges’ board by the tone of their questions. Only two judges, Viktor Shyshkin and Dmytro Lelak, could be called “oppositionists.” Incidentally, only Shyshkin inquired about what would actually happen to the laws because of the revised version of the Constitution.
“Have you thought about what you are going to do with the current legislation which will run counter to constitutional clauses?” he asked MP Valerii Zabarsky, who represents the interests of 252 deputies.
Zabarsky was clearly at a loss.
“I am authorized to be responsible for and represent the constitutional query, and the latter raises the question of violating the procedure established by the Constitution itself,” the MP faltered in his answer.
The president’s representative Olena Lukash looked more confident. She insisted that the procedure had been obviously violated when Law No. 2222 was being passed and, in her opinion, the Constitutional Court would hand down quite an expected (and, let me add, long-awaited) ruling. Ms. Lukash skillfully avoided answering the journalists’ questions in the court’s corridors.
Do you think the court may pass an unexpected ruling?
“I only wish it would be fair, and we will obey it.”
Should the Constitutional Court rule that the political reform was unconstitutional, what next steps will have to be taken?
“This is not a question of today or of the constitutional process. It is the question of political procedure outside the court’s walls.”
But even Mr. Justice Shyshkin asked one of the rapporteurs about the consequences that the abolition of political reform will have.
“It is a relevant question, but it does not concern this hearing. The court is not some ‘forecasting’ body and cannot foresee the political processes outside these walls,” the president’s representative said, avoiding the question again.
The whole procedure consists of two — open and closed-door — parts. At the time of writing, the judges began the closed-door part, i.e., retired to work out a decision. No one can say exactly how long they will debate on the ruling. Rumor has it that this may occur somewhere in early October, although the BYuT expects a quicker decision. Serhii Mishchenko forecasts that the crown will be brought to Yanukovych at Boryspil airport.
“I think the leadership will do its best to tell President Viktor Yanukovych, as he will be stepping down the ramp of the plane that brought him back from the United States, that he already has a Kuchma-era constitution,” he said.
Yet, as The Day has written before, the main intrigue is what will follow the verdict. Will the Verkhovna Rada’s involvement and a referendum be necessary? Will an arbitrary approach prevail, and Ukraine will immediately regain the 1996 version of the Constitution? But, judging by last Thursday’s hearings, the future of Ukraine, after the cancellation of political reform, looks dim even to those who oppose this reform.
