The former head of the National Electoral Commission, retired Constitutional Tribunal judge Wojciech Hermeliński, suggested that if he were among the judges addressed by the appeal, he would consider resigning from office. In response, Krystyna Pawłowicz questioned him with the pointed question,
“Why aren’t you ashamed?”
Four initiatives from the December 13 coalition
On February 4, Justice Minister Adam Bodnar and representatives from all groups aligned with the December 13 Coalition held a press conference in the Sejm to outline proposals related to the Constitutional Court. Shortly thereafter, a package containing four projects was published on the Ministry of Justice website. The package comprises a Sejm resolution, two laws (one establishing the Constitutional Court and another introducing the Law on the Constitutional Court), and a constitutional amendment that would modify the Polish Constitution.
The draft Sejm resolution, as stated in its title, aims to “eliminate the consequences of the constitutional crisis of 2015-2023 in the context of the Constitutional Court’s activities.” It calls on the judges of the Constitutional Court to resign and participate in what the authors describe as a process of democratic renewal.
According to the document, evaluating the Court’s decisions as contrary to the law could be interpreted as a violation of legalism, a point that is read as a direct challenge to the current Constitutional Tribunal by the December 13 Coalition.
In a published note, it is stated that this approach represents an attack on the existing tribunal by the coalition. The text also includes a link to further commentary under the headline indicating the coalition’s broader reform agenda and the legal acts that would accompany these changes.
Hermeliński urges the Constitutional Tribunal judges to resign
Speaking about the proposals, Hermeliński described the resolution aimed at the Constitutional Tribunal as a call to the judges and state authorities. He argued that the document is meant to guide the operation of a supposed “renewed” Tribunal.
When asked whether he would resign in place of the judges addressed by the appeal, Hermeliński stated that he would not accept the election, but if elected, he would resign from his position. He added that he hopes the judges and elected officials will reflect on the possibility of stepping down.
He further referenced the ongoing debates around the tribunal and suggested that the judges themselves should consider the option of resignation as part of the broader constitutional reform process.
commentators discussed the implications of these moves and noted the potential for significant upheaval within the Court. They highlighted the tension between calls for reform and the stability needed for a functioning judiciary in Poland. The discourse has centered on balancing the independence of the constitutional body with the perceived need for structural changes and clearer legal standards.
In related coverage, observers noted that the debate touches on crucial questions about how the Court’s authority should be defined and how its decisions should be treated within the wider legal framework of the country.
Pawłowicz’s rebuke to Hermeliński: “Why aren’t you ashamed?”
The Constitutional Tribunal’s judge Krystyna Pawłowicz drew attention to the remarks of Wojciech Hermeliński, marking the exchange with a concise, pointed post. Critics described the exchange as emblematic of the high-stakes partisan tensions surrounding the tribunal and the broader reform effort.
In her post, Pawłowicz characterized Hermeliński as a former judge who had left the bench eight years ago but who remains highly politicized. She suggested that such figures ought to refrain from offering advice to current judges who are still serving, arguing that the time for political maneuvering had passed and that the focus should be on defending the Constitution rather than pursuing personal positions.
The discourse, amplified by the public discussion on the social platform X, raised questions about the propriety of retired judges commenting on active cases and the potential influence such commentary might have on the legitimacy of the tribunal. Critics urged reflection on whether past actions should inform current calls for resignation or reform.
Supporters of the coalition argued that retired figures have a constitutional duty to contribute to national debates about the Court’s future, while opponents warned against retrospective interference in ongoing processes. The broad public conversation continued to probe how resignation or continued service by tribunal members could shape Poland’s constitutional order in the years ahead.
Additional coverage highlighted recurring claims about threats to the independence of the tribunal and the possibility that political forces might push for dramatic changes in its composition and authority. Observers stressed the importance of transparent processes and lawful mechanisms to address concerns while preserving judicial integrity.
Overall, the discussion reflects a broader struggle over the balance between reform and stability in Poland’s constitutional framework, with a persistent undercurrent of heated public debate about who should lead the Court and how its authority should be exercised in the context of national politics. The evolving narrative continues to trigger commentary from lawmakers, legal experts, and citizens alike, as they weigh potential paths for reform and the implications for the rule of law in the country. [Citation: wPolityce]