President Kuchma signed and forwarded to Verkhovna Rada two bills concerning the implementation of the last referendum, Press Secretary Oleksandr Martynenko told journalists last Wednesday in Ankara.
He further announced that the first bill envisages changes in the law On the Status of the People’s Deputies of Ukraine and the other on procedures for dissolving parliament ahead of time, reports Interfax Ukraine. Both bills have been approved by the Committee for Amendments to the Constitution and other statutory acts ensuing from the referendum and for bills required for further constitutional reform. The committee is presided over by Volodymyr Lytvyn, head of the Presidential Administration, and First Vice Speaker Viktor Medvedchuk.
According to Mr. Martynenko, the bill proposing changes in the law on lawmaker status amends Article 27 thereof with the following clauses: Ukrainian People’s Deputies are guaranteed immunity; they cannot be held legally responsible for any election turnout in Parliament or for any statements made in any parliamentary bodies, except for personal insult and slander.
In addition, the bill stipulates that a deputy may be detained or arrested only on the strength of a ruling justifying it by the Supreme Court of Ukraine. Criminal proceedings against an legislator may be initiated only by the General Prosecutor or any such official as may be acting in his stead.
The parliamentary dissolution bill provides that Verkhovna Rada can be dissolved failing to form a majority within a month or failing to adopt a state budget program within 92 days from the date of its submission to Parliament. The Cabinet must submit a budget bill not later than September 15 annually.
The bill further envisions a constitutional amendment to the effect that parliament may be disbanded failing to hold a plenary meeting within 30 days while in session. If he orders parliament disbanded, the President must set a date for early elections to Verkhovna Rada, to be held within sixty days from the date of issue of the edict sending the lawmakers home.
Parliamentary authority cannot be suspended within a year from the date of election of Verkhovna Rada’s membership in the case of such early elections. Similarly, parliament cannot be dissolved during the last six months of a presidential term or in case of war or national emergency.
The bill details procedures for the parliamentary majority. This majority is to be formed relying on the coordinated unity of political parties in parliament and must remain constantly in effect throughout the parliament’s term.
The majority is considered suspended if its membership is less than one half of the legislature’s constitutional membership.
President Kuchma declared at a news conference in Ankara that he would have to look for “additional means” of influencing the people’s deputies, should parliament lack the “political maturity to pass this resolution of such vital importance to Ukraine” in implementing the referendum results. “I am not going to dedicate four years to a permanent struggle with parliament, sacrificing each year what positive results we have achieved in the economy,” he stressed.
COMMENTARY
Volodymyr FESENKO, political scientist, Kharkiv:
The bills under study should be approached primarily from the political perspective, as a step toward a compromise in implementing the referendum results. The documents can be assessed in terms of their content and conformity to the remarks of the Venice Commission only after studying them in sufficient detail.
However, if the required 300 votes are not collected, only one radical measure, could be taken under the Constitution: dissolution of Verkhovna Rada. I think there are two ways to do that. First, parliament dissolves itself of its own accord. The majority, aware of a political deadlock, proposes this step and votes for it. Second, the president is empowered by the Constitution to order parliament dissolved if it fails to resume work within thirty days while in session. There is a problem here, however. We do not have the notion of plenary sittings. The required interpretation can be given only by the Constitutional Court and then the president could implement it by issuing an order to that effect
I also think that the latter option would be an extreme necessity, the more so that we still don’t have an election law (I mean the old one is not quite legitimate and the new one is still to be approved). Thus I believe that every effort will be made to find a compromise. If the budget and all those codes are not passed by Parliament, this could trigger off the dissolution process.
