Explains Pallaska: Government can limit movement in some areas, total restrictions only place the Assembly

Dysad Palska law-director, through a Facebook post, has explained the role of executive and Assembly in the event of pandemics.

Pallaska has provided constitutional explanation, under which the government has the right to prevent circulation in certain areas that have been affected by infection or risk infection. While Pallaska speeds up, the overall restriction of freedom of movement is made only by the Parliament, writes Periscope.

Pallasca Posting

Two Constitutional Explanation and Counsel

1. Government's ban on circulation in designated areas against country-level freedom of movement limit from Parliament

Taking into account the general confusion caused late last night by the irresponsible actions of the prime minister and the president regarding restricting freedom of movement from government to country level, it is necessary to briefly explain the gap between “driving to an infected or endangered area,” that can be commanded by the Government, and the general restriction of freedom of movement, which can only be imposed by the Parliament.

The government has the right to stop circulation only under circumstances where pandemic is limited to a certain area, or only a certain area is endangered by pandemic. At the moment the pandemic covers the whole country and freedom of movement should be restricted throughout the country, announcement of the state of emergency by the vote of 2/3 of all MPs is required. This is because only with the state of emergency can freedom of movement be limited to the country level.

The determination of the state of emergency by the Parliament is necessary because the decree on which the state of emergency is decided and certain constitutional rights and freedoms are limited must have the content and form of a law, clearly defining rights and freedoms in proportion to risk and applicable exemptions. It is simply insufficient for this issue to be addressed in four paragraphs, as Government has in this case.

The lack of serious handling of this issue by the Government has resulted in a paradoxic situation in which the government's decision has effectively banned the work of constitutional institutions in the country, including the Parliament tasked with overseeing government work. Even media work is limited by the general and absolute content of the government's decision.

2. Executive Power During the Emergency Situation

It is false that with the announcement of the state of emergency, the president receives executive power from the government. On the contrary, due to the state of emergency, the laws in power require mobilization, unity and cooperation from all over the institutional spectrum of the country.

The laws therefore require cooperation between the president and the government in the circumstances of the state of emergency. That's because the government is responsible for governance of the country the president is supreme commander of the Security Force, which can be mobilized and used during the state of emergency.

For this very reason, during the state of emergency Presidetti and Government act together within the Security Council, always within their original constitutional competencies.

The same principle applies to other institutional actors who participate in Security Council meetings with the aim of co-ordinating institutional action in the face of the crisis that has been declared the state of emergency.

Although the president has the formal right to chair the Security Council meetings, the president has no decision-making capacity, on his own, within the Security Council. In fact, decisions continue to be made by the government as the Government constitutes the overwhelming part of Security Council members.

This means that all this constitutional mess has been made only because of the meaningless race between the president and prime minister over who should chair the Security Council meetings, even though the post has no weight of legal or constitutional importance.

These two people, with their rampant protagonism, are not only endangering public health but also threatening public security by sowing the bad seed of periphery that could cause turmoil.

3. Stay at home and listen to advice from independent health institutions

To clarify this confusion by the Constitutional Court, it is important that we all stay at home caring for our health.

The need for self-discipline was never greater in view of the fact that this country's institutional leaders have other priorities.