[ad_1]
Santo Domingo.- For the Constitution of the Republic to come into force after the reforms proposed by the executive branch, a referendum is needed, where the people can vote directly, this is the conclusion reached by a group of important constitutional lawyers gathered in a group organized by the executive branch. Foundation for Global Democracy and Development (FUNGLODE).
The panel, which took place on the evening of Wednesday, August 28, at the headquarters of FUNGLODE, was moderated by Leonel Fernández, former President of the Republic and president of the non-profit entity, and brought together experts such as jurists Leyda Piña Medrano, Eduardo Jorge Prats, Jordin Curry, Manuel Fermín and Maribel Reyes.
The panel was chaired by Hermógenes Acosta, known for his ability to facilitate discussions on legal and constitutional issues.
These experts, including former judges, lawyers, and experts in constitutional and administrative law, provide an ideal setting for examining the scope of programs promoted by the executive branch.
At the beginning of the panel discussion, moderator Hermones Acosta, Judge Emeritus of the Constitutional Court, noted that the 2010 Constitution “is the product of consensus in Dominican society, because it was preceded by a broad popular consultation; today, this Constitution wants to be amended,” indicating that a preliminary consensus is needed to achieve such an amendment.
Leyda Piña Medrano, Honorary Judge of the Constitutional Court, opened the panel by assuring that the proposal put forward by the executive branch is a reform that lacks legitimacy because it does not enjoy the consensus of political actors. The fact that the reform was initially envisioned with 33 articles and two years later proposed to amend 10 of them shows that the reform is “ill-conceived” and is an untimely and unnecessary reform.
Eduardo Jorge Prats, a constitutional lawyer and former dean of the PUCMM Law School, said that for the reformed constitution to take effect, it must go through a referendum process. In addition, he stressed that any reform requires a triple consensus: political, technical and social.
In this sense, Platz recognizes that while a majority of the ruling party can approve constitutional reform, it requires first a political consensus, the support of all political actors within the system; a technical consensus, so that the legal community can debate and agree; and finally a social consensus, which is a situation of social agreement.
When Constitutional Court Honorary Judge Jordin Khoury intervened, he stressed that there was not even a consensus within the ruling party. What the government said was not always in line with what some legislators thought. The President of the Republic could not claim that he was powerless because the current constitution restricted him, which reflected the unnecessary nature of the reform project.
“If there is something that was marketed very successfully, it was the independence of the public ministry,” commented Manuel Fermín Cabral, an expert in administrative law and constitutional law. “So now it is not clear why they would reform the constitution to give it the independence it supposedly already has.” The jurist added that there are no convincing reasons to justify constitutional reform.
Regarding the need for a referendum, Fermín Cabral said: “From the moment the decision is made to intensify the reform process, it means that the reform process is changing,” so holding a referendum is mandatory.
Similarly, Maribel Reyes, who served as an advisor to the president of the Constitutional Court for 10 years, pointed out that there are a series of laws that have yet to be approved under the 2010 Constitution, including the referendum law. Reyes believes that if a stone clause is to be established in the Magna Carta, the approval of the referendum law constitutes a real stone clause because it strengthens the obstacles to the amendment mechanism.
All panelists agreed that the unification of elections constituted a setback, as did the proposal to reduce the number of deputies, which limits representation. Therefore, if the intention is to expand popular representation, the proposal does not make much sense, especially if it abolishes directly elected deputies and increases the number of national deputies elected by the leadership of the parties, which is not directly determined by the voters.
As for the motivation for amending the Constitution to consolidate the Ministry of Public Service, legal scholars also unanimously believe that the current constitutional provisions guarantee the consolidation and independence of the Ministry of Public Service.
Finally, the jurists explained that there are still many pending reforms that should be submitted by the executive branch to Congress for approval, such as penal reform, health care system reform, labor reform, etc.
[ad_2]
Source link
