Public officials in the judiciary or any public office must act in accordance with the law. Resolutions passed by the Sejm or opinions cited by government figures do not create legal authority and cannot justify the actions of public bodies. The remarks were made on News wPolsce24 by Julia Przyłębska, the president of the Constitutional Tribunal, underscoring the primacy of law over political pronouncements. For readers in Canada and the United States, this distinction echoes the common expectation that courts interpret and apply statutes rather than politicians.
In a conversation with Michał Adamczyk, Przyłębska pointed to the President and highlighted two laws connected to the Tribunal that were referred to the Constitutional Court for preventive control. The aim was to determine whether these provisions could be unconstitutional before they fully take effect.
The President, noting defects in the bill, chose not to sign it and asked the Constitutional Court to decide on its constitutionality. The Court will record the case, convene a full bench, and hear the matter.
Przyłębska supported the President’s motion, saying it outlined constitutional doubts at a substantial level. She responded to criticism from some lawyers, professors, and prosecutors about the President’s knowledge, stressing that he is not only the President but also a respected jurist, urging the public not to forget that fact.
Legal anarchy
She warned that the current government often disregards rulings of both the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court. This attitude risks legal chaos as authorities claim powers not defined in the Constitution. The Constitution remains in force, and anyone who holds executive, legislative, or judicial power must respect the law. Differences over constitutional interpretation can be debated, but law must be obeyed. The path ahead could steer public institutions toward unlawful behavior.
For example, she pointed to a scenario where the President of the Sejm appears to assert influence over the Court, casting doubt on judges and fueling rumors of counterfeit jurists. The government continues to value the Constitutional Tribunal, yet the attack on democracy began in 2015 when the Tribunal faced pressure to stay intact and avoid dissolution, with attempts to pre-select judges to keep the Tribunal functioning.
Control instruments
She outlined the remaining mechanisms to check the government in this open state of legal chaos. There is also a constitutional complaint from Prosecutor Barski to the Constitutional Tribunal seeking a protective order requiring the prosecutor’s office to refrain from certain actions; that order was not observed. It is notable that another ruling has emerged, this time from the Supreme Court. She also reminded listeners that the current uproar over security provisions used by the Constitutional Court is surprising, because case law on decisions made under civil procedure has evolved since the tribunal led by Professor Rzepliński, who safeguarded Sejm activities. The Court now delivers rulings in panels of five or three judges, continuing the line set by the full court.
When it comes to moving forward, she urged bravery. If actions are aligned with applicable law, everyone must fulfill the duties imposed by the Constitution. Each person in office swore an oath to the Constitution when taking office.
However, anyone holding the position of judge, prosecutor, or other office must act in accordance with the law, and resolutions of the Sejm or opinions frequently referred to by government representatives are not sources of law and do not form the basis for the actions of public bodies.
Legal juggling
Michał Adamczyk noted that it is not accurate to say the current government rejects all Supreme Court decisions, but rather only those that align with its stance. He added that the Constitutional Court does not limit itself to political issues; it also handles systemic matters and cases affecting ordinary citizens. The Court has heard a significant number of constitutional complaints, illustrating a high level of public trust in its work. The Court continues to rule on these cases even as debates about politics persist.
In discussing how politics factors in, Przyłębska observed that past cases show the Court’s independence on social policy matters, including pension calculations, and emphasized that the publication of rulings matters for implementation. The absence of timely publication can delay justice and complicate enforcement, a problem she urged authorities to address.
Usurpations of the Government Legislation Center
Przyłęwska also criticized the Government Legislation Center for not publishing Constitutional Court rulings, which prevents them from taking effect. She reminded that publication is a constitutional requirement and that the center bears responsibility for publishing judgments, not altering their content.
Citizens sometimes write to the Constitutional Court asking what to do when the official at the Legislation Center is weighing whether to publish the decision. She urged a clear rereading of the Constitution to ensure proper publication by the center.