Chocolate: Constitutional decision regulates precedents, sets new standards for election of Parliament Speaker

According to him, the decision is not simply an answer to a controversial procedure, but a retranslation of the road to institutional functionality.

Cakoli recalls that the Court had since 26 June determined that the secret vote is not acceptable for the election of the Speaker of the Parliament in this legislature, but because of deliberate party interpretation, it was forced to articulate the decision so that it would leave no room for “Misunderstanding”.

The Constitutional Court's recent decision is not simply an answer to a controversial procedure. It is an effort to improve a legacy of unclear precedents that for a decade have helped generate political crises. Yes, the 2014 decision was problematic. But today, the Court is retraining the way to institutional functionality.

It is clear to anyone who closely follows developments that the Court had since June 26th determined that the secret vote is not acceptable for the election of the Speaker of the Parliament in this legislature. But because of a deliberate party interpretation that attempted to relate this clear standard, the Court was forced to articulate the verdict in a way that no longer allows space for <x0-worse understanding”.

Beyond the conclusion that Chief Chief Chief Avni Dehari's actions were unconstitutional and that hearings from June 27th to July 26th are invalid, the core of the decision lies in restoring the procedure to the point where it went astray. Currently, it is a constitutional obligation for the chairman to proceed with the 3rd starting point of the April 8th agenda and the largest party to propose the candidate for Parliament Speaker. This candidate can only be voted three times, not indefinitely, which marks a clear divide with the logic of the repeated candidacys that produce institutional incisor”, Calcoli wrote.

Chocolate views this restriction, not as formal improvisement, but as a logical standard and essential mechanism of the parliamentary system, which recognises legitimacy through majority and consensus, not candidacy obligation.

For him, the decision turns compromise from political rhetoric to functional instrument of parliamentary democracy.

“Deploying this border is not formal improvised, but standard logical and subsisting mechanism of the parliamentary system itself. In essence, this is a system that recognizes legitimacy through majority and consensus, not candidacy. Through this restriction, the Court has clarified that the right to propose is not symbolic, and that candidacy cannot be brought to MPs indefinitely in the absence of necessary support. This is a way to turn compromise from political rhetoric into functional instruments of parliamentary democracy.

However, the decision leaves behind an issue that merits more clarification. By restoring the 30-day term to zero point, but not clearly defined (at least based on device) the consequences in case of any new violations by the chairman or in case of repeated failure for the institution are created a dangerous area for legal vacuum. The only question left is: whether, even now, in the next effort, a similar deviation occurs, will the constitutional deadline be considered exhausted or not? Should the country go automatically to the elections or repeat the same logic of canceling the deadline? ”, it added.

However, he warns, the decision leaves an unresolved issue behind: what happens if there are repeated violations or failures in the constitution within the 30-day term. According to him, restoring the zero point deadline, without clearly determining the consequences in case of the new failure, could create a legal vacuum.

This dilemma is in fact at the heart of the initial request of the President of the Republic who, despite its formal withdrawal, required precisely clarification on the judicial consequences in the event of the constitution's failure within the constitutional deadline. In this context, it is imperative that the Court address this interpreter's vacuum to build an uncontainable precedent that guarantees constitutional security and prevents the misuse of deadlines.

Finally, with the final decision, the Court is changing the course of practice and replacing the 2014 doctrine with a more functional practice and in accordance with the spirit of the Constitution. Even if there are political attacks on the Court as it already does, with statements from party exhibits they cannot hide the fact that the standard is being properly calculated, and this serves the system, not any party in particular”, Calcol wrote.