Polish Constitutional Debates: Shaping a Future Legal Framework

The shape of Poland’s legal framework in the future

In a setting where non-incidental but clear violations of the law by the governing authorities are present, open dialogue becomes extremely challenging, according to Bartłomiej Wróblewski. He stressed the need to craft a new form of justice that would be acceptable to all sides. Any reforms should focus on the future and must avoid shortening the terms of office for judges serving on the Constitutional Court or for members of the National Council for the Judiciary.

Amid concerns about the strong influence over public media and what some see as a pattern of legal breaches by the Justice Minister, and given a political majority seen as the most undemocratic since 1989, talks about constitutional changes in Poland are difficult. Still, there are reasons to discuss such changes, though one should anticipate resistance from actions pursued by a liberal-left coalition led by Donald Tusk. A cautious outlook suggests at least a partial withdrawal from these moves.

– noted a PiS member of parliament.

The shape of the legal system

The question emerges: how should the Polish legal system be structured in the years ahead? Wróblewski recalled that he first raised this issue when he ran for Human Rights Ombudsman in 2021 and proposed a roundtable as a forum for negotiating solutions that would satisfy all political stakeholders. The aim would be to avoid drastic changes every electoral cycle and to find stable, cross-party solutions.

– he emphasized.

For instance, until 2010 the Attorney General also served as Minister of Justice. The governing party separated these roles, a status later restored by another party, and today debates again center on independence between the Attorney General and government oversight. This historical thread was highlighted as a point of reflection.

– Wróblewski remembered.

The parliamentary deputy drew attention to the drawbacks of frequent regulatory shifts, noting that repeated changes to the framework governing the public prosecutor’s office within a decade undermine public confidence and ease of operation. Such churn does not foster legal certainty or prosecutor performance. A broad roundtable conversation could help limit shifts during the next political cycle, he argued.

– he emphasized.

However, meaningful reforms would require a constitutional majority—two-thirds in the Sejm. Real change cannot occur without both major blocs delivering support.

– added.

The future of the Constitutional Court

Wróblewski drew attention to the future role of the Constitutional Court and related bodies, such as the National Council for the Judiciary and the Public Prosecution Service. While debates should consider what these institutions might look like in the future, they must stay future-focused. He could not envision a constitutional reset that dissolves all current institutions and re-elects everyone. Any discussion about selecting Constitutional Court judges should aim for a stable path forward, not a mass replacement of judges. He cautioned against scrapping the National Court Register entirely.

– said the parliamentarian.

He also revisited the idea from 2016 about electing Constitutional Court judges by a qualified majority, two-thirds rather than three-fifths. Such a majority provides greater security for the opposition, and achieving it would require broad cross-party agreement. The conversation could continue in this direction.

– he noted.

Regarding the current composition of the Constitutional Court, he argued there is no justification for immediate changes. The governing coalition could appoint three judges within ten months, while the terms of the next judges would expire in the following year. The system tends to evolve gradually, and a large-scale replacement of all judges does not seem warranted at this time.

– said the parliamentarian.

As for the National Council for the Judiciary, its term ends in 2026, and it is likely that the rules governing its election will change. Extending the current terms for all members does not seem justified. Opinions differ on the best compromise for electing council members, with some proposing a mixed approach that involves judges themselves and other actors, such as parliament, in a way that does not politicize the process or rely on social factors. The search for a practical compromise could continue.

– he emphasized.

Speaking about a constitutional reset, he regarded it as a prompt for a roundtable discussion focused on what essential legal institutions might look like in the future. He maintained that any such reset should avoid ending the tenure of the institutions mentioned and should aim for a durable, practical arrangement.

– added.

Dialogue and reform

Is there room for dialogue in a climate marked by legal violations by the current government? Wróblewski suggested that while cooperation remains challenging, there is still value in seeking a broad agreement that could endure across decades. He pointed to the possibility of the Public Prosecution Service making improvements and urged that a compromise include centrists, conservatives, and left-leaning voices. The key is to prevent changes from happening with every political shift, which only fuels instability. The current atmosphere, however, makes genuine dialogue difficult and a durable compromise elusive.

– he said.

Ultimately, the aim is to craft a framework that enables a legitimate meeting to translate into a constitutional amendment. Such reforms should be embedded in the constitutional text to ensure they endure beyond political cycles and provide lasting change.

– added.