The value of reliable information and access to it cannot be overestimated. Without this there is no chance of a normal state, of a minimum of freedom. You start to appreciate it when you start to miss it. (…). Everyone, young and old, deserves to know this. How can you get this without access to information? It is impossible – says prof. in an interview with wPolityce.pl. Anna Łabno, asked about the unilateral attack on the president, in two TVP and TVN news programs in which the same experts appeared.
wPolityce: Two major evening news programs: neo-TVP and TVN, featured identical voices of the same pundits ruthlessly attacking President Andrzej Duda. At the beginning of our conversation, I would like to ask you for the reflection of a media recipient, and not of a scientist who deals with political issues.
Prof. Anna Labno: My reflection is clear. I avoid media that give us these kinds of impressions. However, I wonder where is the independence and ‘newness’ that should appear in the public media? After all, that was the intention, and all indications are that it did not happen.
So let’s look at the allegations against the president, which appear in the same media and are presented by the same experts. The first concerns the pardon of Ministers Kamiński and Wąsik. Are we really dealing with a constitutional unlawful act by the head of state?
There is only one way to resolve this issue. We are dealing with presidential prerogative. He exercised his right, so it is beyond dispute and he has no legal means to change this situation in any way. It is worthwhile to consult the extensive literature on this subject. In one of the textbooks for criminal lawyers we can read that this privilege is interpreted broadly, which means that it can be used at any stage of the criminal proceedings in court.
It is alleged that the President pardoned both politicians following an illegal court ruling.
I read that the president “did not have the authority” to make such a decision in this situation. However, both the letter of the law and the literature on the subject show that the president had the right to pardon these politicians after the first instance verdict. From a legal point of view there are no reasons to criticize this. Such a decision may be judged in a political context, and someone may not like the decision.
And everyone is entitled to such an assessment.
Of course, but this is a political or journalistic assessment and does not limit the president in any way. Fundamental doubts are raised by the decision of the Supreme Court, which decided to reopen this case, which quickly ended at the District Court in Warsaw.
The court’s decisions were contrary to the provisions of the Constitution.
The president acted with absolute authority.
Another accusation against the head of state is the “refusal to take the oath of properly appointed judges of the Constitutional Court and the appointment of the so-called students.”
First of all, it must be said that the President does not appoint judges of the Constitutional Court. This is the exclusive competence of the Sejm, and the President will not take action until the proceedings before the Sejm have been completed. The president does not monitor or “check” anything because he has no legal authority to understand such activities. His activities simply constitute the final stage in the process of appointing judges to the Constitutional Court. He did the same.
So we are dealing with the fundamental falsity of this theory about the alleged violation of the Constitution by the President in the context of the appointment of the Constitutional Court?
You can say. Let us not forget that this is a very important, albeit final, stage of this procedure. The judge must take an oath. Until this happens, we cannot say that he has the right to sit on the Constitutional Court. However, the president does not have the option to disqualify an elected judge of the Constitutional Court nominated to him by name. It should be remembered that the Sejm and the President of the Republic of Poland are two independent authorities. It is impossible to exercise control without a clear legal basis on which the president could act.
This leads to a new ‘accusation’ by the same experts against the president, namely the claim that the head of state ‘approved’ the changes in the Constitutional Court.
The President carries out only those activities that flow from the Constitution and laws. The president has no implied powers. Such considerations can be made on the basis of the so-called the Small Constitution that preceded the 1997 Constitution, but this was excluded. Let us not forget that this tended to deprive the president of any opportunity to actively participate in politics.
It is also striking that the makers and co-framers of the 1997 Constitution are today accusing the President of passivity or ‘breaking’ the Constitution.
The president has no authority to do so. If he were to take such actions, he would be committing a constitutional tort. Actions, I repeat, that are contrary to the Constitution and laws.
As I remain at the Constitutional Tribunal, I am surprised by another accusation from the same critics, alleging that the President did not veto laws that violated the Constitution. This is clearly not true, because the president’s vetoes are well known. After all, only the Constitutional Court decides whether a law is in accordance with the constitution.
We are dealing with an attempt to attack the president with tools he cannot use himself. He can submit the bill to the Constitutional Court, but he makes this decision independently and takes responsibility for it. Just like a judge who has the right to submit a legal question to the Constitutional Court. There is no norm here that the president could violate. We are talking about the power of the President to refer or veto a bill to the Tribunal. The president is not a chandelier.
There is also an accusation against the President regarding the National Council for the Judiciary and its form.
In Europe we have two possible solutions regarding this body. Either it is a body whose entire composition is the result of the decisions of judges; this is the judicial part of the Council, or it is a decision of parliaments. Each of these solutions has its pros and cons. It seems that the choice of the form of the National Court Register currently in force in Poland offers more advantages. It limits the domination of the composition of these fifteen judges by their own circles. It was not only politicians who had reservations about the previous form of the Council. They also appeared in literature. This body can be reformed, but its current composition cannot be considered unconstitutional under any circumstances. Other variants are being considered and that is obvious, but from the president’s point of view he has not committed any abuse of the law, not to mention any violation of the law. The current composition of the National Council for the Judiciary is absolutely in accordance with the Constitution.
Doesn’t this one-sided attack on the president by experts have more to do with current politics than with an academic discussion about the shape of our political system?
This is a disturbing phenomenon because the position of the president in Poland is equal to the position of parliament. He is elected by universal suffrage. This has already been questioned and projects have emerged to eliminate the President as a political and legal entity. I was against it and I am convinced that the President represents the majority of society, which does not always support what the parliamentary majority proposes and approves. The provisions of the constitution indicate that the president can act as a counterbalance to parliament.
This is exactly the situation we find ourselves in.
This means that the President, based on the powers granted to him by the Constitution, must defend certain principles and values arising from the Constitution. In the event of legal conflicts arising in Poland, he must defend the letter of the law that elected him.
This brings our conversation full circle. You are talking about rights, and the right to information is one of the most important rights for an informed society. In the context of this one-sided and subjective attack by the same experts in different television newsrooms, we can probably already talk about a problem with access to this right.
The value of reliable information and access to it cannot be overestimated. Without this there is no chance of a normal state, of a minimum of freedom. You start to appreciate it when you start to miss it. The most important thing, as I have said several times, is that we can keep all the centers that provide reliable information functioning. Everyone, young and old, deserves to know this. How can you get this without access to information? It’s impossible.
Interviewed by Wojciech Biedroń
READ ALSO: OUR INTERVIEW. Mec. Markiewicz: The media rules were brutally and directly violated. You can change the media, but not with a stick!
Source: wPolityce