Polish public discourse has been roiled by debates over reforms to the law and public media, with former Prime Minister Donald Tusk taking a firm stance that any changes would fit within the country’s legal framework. Critics argue that such assurances skirt constitutional boundaries. Among the alarmed voices is Prof. Stanisław Biernat, a former vice president of the Constitutional Court, who told OKO.press that attempts to rewrite legal norms are underway without direct constitutional revision, weakening checks and balances in the process.
A retired judge from the Constitutional Tribunal described the moves as a rewrite of the legal order with selective omissions of the Constitution itself. He argued this pattern matters for public accountability and for safeguarding judicial integrity. The heart of the discussion is how legal norms should be interpreted when political pressures introduce new words or ideas into public debate.
In the discussion it was argued that the Sejm, the Government, the Prosecutor General, and other participants in potential judicial proceedings should not recognize Julia Przyłębska as President of the Constitutional Court, nor acknowledge consequences of her actions. The argument continued that the court currently has no vice-president because the president had not chosen one from candidates previously submitted, and by law the vice president’s duties are tied to the president’s presence and direction.
Prof. Biernat noted that the judges themselves selected Julia Przyłębska to lead the Constitutional Court, a point he highlighted while recounting recent proceedings and resolutions. He referred readers to a recent OKO.press feature about the court’s term and the decision not to convene a meeting to elect new candidates for the chairmanship. The General Assembly of Judges reportedly said there were no grounds to call such a meeting, leaving the chairmanship unresolved.
From Biernat’s view, the court appears unable to act in practice, described as dormant or hollowed out. He urged authorities to draw practical conclusions, arguing that the court cannot hear cases, issue judgments, or publish rulings in the Journal of Laws. The dialogue raised questions about the limits of political influence on constitutional bodies and about potential legal liabilities for moves aimed at undermining or replacing constitutional norms with political resolutions.
When pressed about what a hollowed-out constitutional body means in concrete regulatory terms, Biernat suggested consulting specific provisions that define how the court operates. He reminded readers that constitutional rulings are final and not subject to revision, a cornerstone of constitutional order and a reminder that attacks on constitutional institutions can bring criminal penalties.
A shift from constitutional text to political resolutions?
The discussion did not end there. Biernat warned against using parliamentary resolutions to replace the constitution, noting that such a move could shorten the terms of office for the Constitutional Court and the National Council for the Judiciary. He described a scenario in which a special constitutional law would be issued to suspend office terms and pave the way for new elections, underscoring the importance of how the constitution governs the election and verification of judges.
He also floated the idea that the Sejm alone might regain primary authority to elect Tribunal judges, while proposing explicit constitutional provisions to govern how members of the National Council for the Judiciary are elected, including how many judges are chosen by the judicial community. These points formed a recurring thread in the OKO.press interview, highlighting the ongoing debate over constitutional supremacy versus parliamentary action.
Observers online have noted that supporters of political figures may interpret constitutional hierarchy through a partisan lens. The conversation emphasized that constitutional supremacy remains a guiding principle, even when political rhetoric calls for dramatic changes. It is argued that constitutional law trumps parliamentary resolutions, a concept that some critics say has not been fully appreciated in recent discourse. Critics suggest that moving away from the constitutional framework could undermine Poland’s alignment with European norms and institutions.
Several voices within the broader European context have stressed that the constitutional order should remain the highest authority. The discussion recalled past high court positions: the court’s stance that the constitution stands above international agreements in matters of national sovereignty and the limits of EU law when it conflicts with fundamental constitutional guarantees. Those points serve as a counterpoint to claims that EU norms could override national constitutional principles, a debate that has featured prominently in recent public commentary.
Recent commentary also referenced historical rulings under previous leadership that affirmed the Constitution as the supreme law and reiterated that international agreements must be interpreted to respect Poland’s constitutional framework. The discussion acknowledged that these positions continue to influence contemporary debates about Poland’s place within the European Union and the obligations that flow from it.
In this climate, some observers warned against casual language that treats routine legal debates as evidence of a broader decline in the rule of law. The aim is to keep constitutional processes stable and transparent, regardless of shifting political winds. The broader takeaway is a reminder that the constitution provides the ultimate framework and that attempts to substitute it with provisional parliamentary acts could carry significant legal and political costs.
Ultimately, the dialogue about the role of the Constitutional Court, the election of its judges, and the relationship between national and European law continues to unfold. The central question remains how a constitutional order should respond when political actors push to redefine its core features. The answer, many observers say, lies in upholding the constitution as the supreme law and ensuring judicial independence and accountability for citizens across North America and Europe alike.
OKO.press coverage noted ongoing discussions without tying them to any single outcome, emphasizing the importance of a robust, transparent framework for constitutional governance that withstands political pressures across different regions.