A senior constitutional scholar, Prof. Anna Łabno, remarked in an interview with wPolityce.pl that urging citizens and institutions to disregard the law runs counter to every legal principle. She described the action as an outright violation of constitutional rights and the rule of law, at odds with the very fabric of a democratic Poland. Łabno, a lecturer at the Faculty of Law and Public Administration at the University of Silesia in Katowice, weighed in on the governing coalition’s proposed changes to the regulations governing the Constitutional Court.
Her assessment emphasizes that the matter should be treated as two separate issues. The first concerns a resolution with a nature similar to the December judgments on the judiciary, while the second involves a broader project of constitutional amendments that would overhaul the Constitutional Court in its entirety.
Illegal changes
Łabno asserted that the reforms and structural changes proposed for the Constitutional Tribunal cannot be properly implemented using the method advocated by the ministry led by Adam Bodnar. She insisted that the Constitution guarantees a tenure that cannot be altered by such procedures, and that changes must respect established constitutional safeguards rather than unilateral regulatory moves.
Regarding the second issue, she argued that careful attention is required to the specifics, while for the first issue the same pattern as in December is evident: attempts to regulate areas that should be governed by separate, lawful acts. In her view, the legal status of the Constitutional Court and the constitutionally guaranteed terms of office for its judges cannot be modified through the proposed route.
She also described it as particularly scandalous to urge various state institutions, as well as Polish citizens, to ignore current laws. Łabno stated that such calls undermine the norms of a democratic constitutional state and run counter to the very principle of legality that underpins the Polish constitutional order.
Finally, she focused on a fundamental concern: encouraging citizens and institutions to avoid applying the law. She called this stance a direct violation of the rule of law and the constitution, noting that it has nothing to do with genuine democratic principles or the rule of law.
In related discourse, observers note a pattern of arguments suggesting that legislative power could be displaced by executive or judicial decision-making mechanisms. Analysts from different corners of the academic and political landscape have highlighted the tension between proposed changes and the constitutional framework that guards judicial independence and executive accountability.
Additional commentary on the matter includes remarks about the coalition’s approach to the Constitutional Tribunal and the broader constitutional reform agenda. Some voices argue that any attempt to alter the Tribunal’s operation should be grounded in clear legal provisions, with transparency and adherence to the Constitution as non-negotiables. Others warn that hasty or opaque changes could erode public trust and invite further constitutional disputes.
The debate continues as lawmakers and legal scholars evaluate how to balance reform with the protections guaranteed by the Constitution. The central question remains: can the Constitutional Court be reorganized in a way that preserves its independence, while also ensuring that constitutional amendments reflect the will of the people and the rule of law?
These discussions come amid broader conversations about the division of powers, the role of constitutional courts in safeguarding rights, and the procedures through which reform proposals should pass before reaching the courts. As the situation evolves, observers urge careful, law-based consideration rather than expedient, politically driven changes that could complicate the constitutional landscape for years to come.
– End of analysis –