The Sejm does not act as a reviewer of the Constitutional Court. There is a separation of powers that is clear and transparent. The presidency of the court, Julia Przyłębska, stated on Telewizja wPolska that judges are not subject to judgment through a parliamentary resolution.
The President of the Constitutional Court reviewed the resolution adopted by the Sejm concerning the Constitutional Court itself.
She argued that she is not authorized to lead the Constitutional Court and described the Sejm’s resolution as inappropriate for such a legal action. The areas addressed in the resolution cannot be regulated by the form used here.
– she said.
The Sejm is not the arbiter of the Constitutional Court. There is a division of powers that remains transparent and binding. Judges cannot be judged by a parliamentary decision.
– she stated.
She criticized the use of illegal and unlawful resolutions that seem designed to prompt other state bodies into unlawful action, pointing to the actions of the parliamentary majority.
– she commented, noting that evaluating judges by their activities creates incentives for various entities to act in different ways and amounts to incitement to crime.
Questions were raised about whether the three Constitutional Court judges might resign. The answer, she indicated, is that resignation is not a viable option. There have been no reports of judges taking such steps, and there have been proposals and intimidation that would prompt a prosecutor’s review. She emphasized that such actions reveal a misunderstanding of crime and an interference with the powers of the third estate.
– she stated.
Clarification was sought about whether judges could be physically removed from the Constitutional Court. She dismissed the notion as unimaginable and unlikely, noting that the judges enjoy immunity and that such a scenario would be unacceptable.
– she replied.
Przyłębska addressed accusations about the high standing and long-standing merits of the Constitutional Court’s judges. On the topic of salaries, she pointed out that a significant portion of funds is allocated to retirement benefits for former judges and their families, a provision that endures for life. She stressed that it did not depend on who signed the decisions currently under discussion.
People who receive these benefits often criticize the Constitutional Court, sometimes in ways she finds unbecoming of a former judge of the court. She noted this critique without endorsing it.
The President of the Constitutional Court also commented on yesterday’s Sejm discussion regarding a resolution about the court. She observed that the discourse lacked substantive arguments, featuring insults, shouting, and simplistic rhetoric.
She highlighted that critics in the Sejm may not fully grasp the court’s rulings, noting the existence of numerous constitutional complaints. It appeared to her that some opponents had not engaged with the court’s rulings, remaining immersed in discussions about the court rather than its outcomes.
She reflected on listening to Confederation deputies who spoke about respecting the constitution. The idea behind resetting the constitution is acknowledged, including discussions about possible amendments. The constitution, adopted at a particular moment, reflects the state of society at that time. She respects this constitution because it embodies the will of the sovereign, while recognizing that there could be discussions about changing it.
– she observed.
The anarchy seen now is a crime against citizens
Asked whether violations by institutions under Tusk’s coalition should be resolved in the future, she replied that the approach depends on who committed the violations and the consequences for citizens. The current level of anarchy is harmful and constitutes an act against the people.
– she stated.
Przyłębska was asked why she did not appear in the Sejm wearing a shirt with the word Constitution. She replied that while the image might be humorous, the office she holds is serious and an essential part of the country’s governance. She suggested that elections are not taken seriously enough and argued that politics bears responsibility for this. Building a program around the destruction of the state would ultimately harm everyone and trigger a crisis caused by irresponsible behavior by politicians.
– she answered.
In closing, she referenced the broader political discourse and the role of the Constitutional Court in upholding the rule of law while reminding that changes to the constitution require careful deliberation and respect for the institutions that safeguard the legal order.
tkwl
Source: wPolityce