So far the main one
the law is
changed five
times, mainly for
the judiciary
We asked leading constitutionalists what could change without the Supreme National Assembly
Change of the constitution in the part that forbids people with dual citizenship to be candidates for deputies, ministers, presidents – this was discussed during the decision of the Constitutional Court on the case “Kiril Petkov”.
If the next parliament starts debating changes to the constitution, what can an Ordinary National Assembly do about it?
We asked authoritative lawyers what could be corrected without the Grand National Assembly – the body that is the only one that makes radical changes in the basic law.
Mandatory
condition,
when the Ordinary National Assembly amends the constitution, it is “for” at least 160 deputies to vote. They must support change three times on three different days. The initiative must initially consist of a minimum of 60 deputies. With fragmented parliaments like the last two, the 45th and the 46th, it seems almost impossible to reach the support of 160 people.
The proposal shall be considered not earlier than one month and not later than three months from its receipt.
1. Do you
government,
you write first
program
“I have a list of desired changes that the National Assembly can make, but there is a difference between what is desired and what is possible,” he said. Assoc. Prof. Natalia Kiselova. She is one of the most prominent connoisseurs of law.
According to her, a major change that would create predictability in the country is to write that the government is considered approved after the adoption of a program for its management. This is the case in Germany, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy.
In Germany, for example, they are not yet nominating a government because they are preparing the program. It is thanks to such a text that, in its basic law, Western European countries do not tremble and do not fall into crisis during shifts.
“The governance program is more important than the composition of the government. In our country, people care a lot, not what they will work for ”, explains Assoc. Prof. Kiselova.
2.
The parliamentary one
control –
mandatory,
plenary
meetings –
rarer
Another change that can be introduced. Usually, the National Assembly is to sign in the basic law that the parliamentary control of the Prime Minister is obligatory, according to Assoc. Prof. Natalia Kiselova.
According to her, it could be considered to dilute the plenary sessions of the National Assembly. The argument – to “calm the legislation” and not to make drastic changes in it.
A similar thesis was put forward by the former head of the parliament Iva Miteva.
Now, for example, in the haste of the second reading, texts are sneaking in that have not been discussed in the committees at all.
3. Even stronger
parliament
The former constitutional judge Blagovest Punev sees in the Basic Law a contradiction related to the status of the President. “In a parliamentary republic, his powers are representative, he is more of a moderator between different political forces. It is no coincidence that there is a text that embodies the unity of the nation “, explains Punev.
According to him, the contradiction stems from the fact that, on the one hand, the powers of the head of state are limited, and on the other hand, he is elected directly by the people and not by the parliament. That is why there has always been a conflict between the head of state and the executive branch.
“Receiving the highest legitimacy gives him the feeling that he is a separate center of power,” Punev said.
And are such changes within the competence of the Grand or Ordinary National Assembly?
“If you go to a presidential republic, it must be decided by the Supreme National Assembly. But if the parliamentary nature of the form of government, such as ours, is strengthened, it can usually be. Although decision №3 of 2003 (see about it below) it expands the concept of government too much and makes important reforms impossible, ”he said.
Again because of the same decision, constitutionalists believe that the Constitutional Court should be asked whether an ordinary parliament can remove the requirement that deputies be only Bulgarian citizens. Because it could be interpreted as affecting the relationship between the authorities.
“In my opinion, it can be done by the Ordinary National Assembly, but this should not be touched, because dual citizenship creates a conflict of interest,” Punev said.
4. Without official
government
According to Blagovest Punev, one could think of the existence of a caretaker government, because in many countries there was none.
The figure of the caretaker government in our constitution arose because of the great distrust of political forces, which believe that the elections should be conducted by a more neutral cabinet, explains the former constitutional judge.
Five repairs on
the constitution
so far
For its 30 years of existence, the constitution has been changed five times – in 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007 for the last time in 2015.
Some of the new texts are related to our accession to the European Union, another to the creation of the position of ombudsman and his right to refer to the Constitutional Court (CC). Since 2015, such a right has been given to the Supreme Bar Council, again with a constitutional amendment. However, the most changes are in Chapter 6 – the judiciary.
It is good to ask the Constitutional Court before proposing amendments to the basic law, constitutionalists recommend. But they added that MPs should be responsible for their legislative initiatives, not transfer them to other institutions. For example in 2006 MPs voted that the three major members of the judiciary – the heads of the Supreme Court of Cassation, the Supreme Administrative Court and the Prosecutor General – could be released by the president at the suggestion of a quarter of MPs.
The Constitutional Court declared this unconstitutional.
In 2020 on the other hand, knowing that there was no majority for a constitutional change, GERB tried to impose the super-prosecutor to investigate the chief, only with changes in the judicial law and the PPC. The Constitutional Court cut them off, considering that this is a state body of an extraordinary nature, which is inadmissible.
The iconic
solution no. 3
since 2003
In it, the constitutional judges pointed out that any change in the basic law by the Ordinary National Assembly is subject to control by the Constitutional Court. And they gave a broad interpretation of the term “form of government.
“This concept is defined not only by the nature of the state as a parliamentary or presidential republic or monarchy. It also includes the system of higher state institutions, “the judges said. And they added, “that the balance between them cannot be disturbed.”
“This decision was in a case initiated at the request of the then chief prosecutor, who feared that the prosecutor’s office would be removed from the judiciary,” Blagovest Punev explained.
The Constitutional Court ruled on the changes in the constitution as early as 2004 and 2005. And especially on the judiciary, it accepted that internal changes could also be made by the Ordinary National Assembly. This led to changes in the structure of the SJC in 2015. In addition, the management of judicial property passed from the Ministry of Justice to the SJC.
– .
