The Constitutional Court ruled on July 4 to terminate proceedings in the case presented by 57 and 69 People’s Deputies claiming the unconstitutionality of resolutions passed by the members convened at Ukraine House on January 21 and February 1. The judges resolved that the case must be closed due to the fact that the issues brought forth are not within the CC’s jurisdiction. In other words, the case challenging the parliamentary majority’s constitutionality ended in a message to the lawmakers to solve their own problems. Yet everybody knows that they were unable to do so.
For many, the CC ruling was no surprise, although after two referenda it will cause the biggest political reverberations, despite CC Chairman Viktor Skomorokha’s assurances to journalists that all accusations of the CC of being politicized should be attributed to the “childhood diseases of a growing state,” and that CC will simply ignore them. However, after shattering the minority’s hopes to “restore justice,” the Constitutional Court will very likely be exposed to severe verbal attacks from the opposition.
As for certain Deputies accusing some of their colleagues of wrongdoing when forming the majority, this is the prerogative of a court of law. In fact, the Constitutional Court was informed by the prosecutor’s office that an investigation is in progress. As for the allegedly unlawful dismissal of Speaker Tkachenko and his Deputy Adam Martyniuk and the majority status, all this relates to the Verkhovna Rada’s own rules and as such cannot be adjudicated by the CC. The authors of the constitutional presentation wanted the court to answer the question whether the resolutions passed by the legislators officiating at Ukraine House could be considered acts of Parliament. Mr. Skomorokha says it is a rhetorical question, really: “If the authors of the constitutional presentation do not consider them as such, they should not turn to the Constitutional Court, because under the Constitution and CC Statute the court deals with acts of the Verkhovna Rada. Thus by submitting their presentation to us they made it clear that they did consider them legitimate acts of the Verkhovna Rada.” In other words, the question is not rhetorical, considering such an unequivocal reply.
Of course, the parliamentary minority represented by Progressive Socialists Natalia Vitrenko and Volodymyr Marchenko at the press conference of the CC Chairman will become more active in issuing accusations and denunciations after the ruling. In fact, Mr. Marchenko has already declared that the reason for the Court evolving into a political body and making political decisions is found in the very method of its formation, so it would be better to have its membership appointed by Verkhovna Rada. Moreover, he wonders whether Ukraine actually needs the Constitutional Court as a weighty argument of the regime, whose decisions are final and not subject to appealed, considering this court’s vulnerability to political pressure. Now this is a hundred percent rhetorical question.
One ought to consider one card still up the opposition’s sleeve: the allegedly unlawful replacement of the Speaker. Using considerable legal experience (apparently accumulated in the opposition’s lawsuits with state structures), Volodymyr Marchenko notes that the court proceeded from the fact that Speaker Tkachenko was dismissed, yet the big question remains: Under what clauses of the Constitution? Mr. Skomorokha says the subject will be dealt with at the next CC session. But an answer to the question must come first, the Progressive Socialists insist (after the CC ruling they have more reason to feel chagrined; now they have no cause to stay voluntarily closeted on a parliament balcony, since the decision gives them a moral right to reenter the parliamentary audience and register, which they will do, of course).
