Members of parliament will have to do laborious work with two weeks to go before the recess. In addition to considering the Land Code, opposed in principle by the Left opposition, they are to discuss in the first reading the draft Tax Code. Making a decision on the latter may slow down in direct proportion to how radical the document is. First Vice Premier Yuri Yekhanurov has already said, apparently to forestall such a scenario, that the “high tension surrounding the draft Tax Code” and new proposals will make it possible to significantly improve the document. But, come what may, parliament needs to hurry up, for the process of adopting the budget has practically ground to a halt due to absence of a new tax ideology.
But by far the most difficult problem the Solons could face is discussing the bill or bills (if the Constitutional Court fulfills its promise to pass its judgment on the second, parliamentary, draft by July 14) on the post-referendum amendments to the Constitution. As we know, the President suggested that the lawmakers approve this bill at the fifth session, to be over on July 14, and finally pass it during the sixth. It will be recalled that the procedure of implementing the referendum results provides for the process of constitutional changes to begin at one parliamentary session and end at another. Yet, the presidential bill on constitutional changes, now fully prepared for consideration after passing the Constitutional Court, will not be put on the agenda of this week’s plenum. As Speaker Ivan Pliushch told journalists, it is most likely to be discussed next week because most People’s Deputies had been working for a week in their constituencies and thus had no opportunity to familiarize themselves with the court ruling. For this reason the legislators will have a week and a half to ponder their decision and study the Constitutional Court conclusion which, incidentally, says it is advisable to supplement the proposed Constitutional changes with guarantees for the “parliamentary minority” and mechanisms to keep the budget process going in case of an early dissolution of parliament. But they will only have one on Thursday July 13 to vote on. Why such a long delay? And will July 13 really be the beginning of implementation? Will the majority be able to organize itself on the last day well enough to avoid pitfalls big and small?
Procedural issues are more and more clearly coming to the fore of the implementation process. For example, if the Deputies are to study the Constitutional Court conclusion on the presidential bill for almost one and a half weeks, will it take them the same or even more time to study the conclusion on the larger and more complicated, as the judges themselves claim, alternative bill? Answering the question of journalists whether the Rada’s bill will be considered if parliament first approves the presidential bill in the first reading, Mr. Pliushch said the CC ruling “will entail a corresponding procedure of consideration.”
Or, for example, what will happen if the Constitutional Court makes public its conclusion on the alternative bill, say, on Thursday July 13 taking into account that Verkhovna Rada will not be voting on Friday? Will this mean that the presidential bill will thereby gain a temporary advantage over the parliamentary one? Answering the question whether the session will take place if the CC makes public its decision on the alternative bill on the last day of parliamentary proceedings, Speaker Pliushch said parliament “cannot rely on one bill or another and change its work schedule.” At the same time, he said if the lawmakers move and vote positively for a proposal to prolong the session, he, as Verkhovna Rada chairman, will “obey” the decision.
In all probability, further scenarios of implementation will be drawn up during a proposed meeting between leaders of parliamentary groups and factions and the President. Still, some sources do not rule out the possibility of postponing it for the next session, although this so far seems unlikely.
INCIDENTALLY
“The majority’s coordination council has taken a decision to approve the presidential draft law by 226 votes.” Thus on July 4 parliament Vice Speaker Stepan Havrysh put the final full stop on disputes and speculation about immediate prospects for debating the presidential version of implementing the referendum results after a meeting between the Verkhovna Rada leadership and the President. Now all proposals to await a decision on the alternative bill and deliberating it together with the presidential one, to postpone discussion of the presidential bill to the next session, to modify the presidential bill with due account of Constitutional Court (CC) remarks and submit it again for a new examination, are things of the past.
According to Roman Bezsmertny, permanent representative of the President in Verkhovna Rada, “the President’s position is as follows: Verkhovna Rada must either vote for the provisions supported by citizens, while further procedure of their enactment can be set out in the current legislation, or amend the Constitutional clauses later on.” The position of the parliament leadership, expressed by Speaker Pliushch and Vice Speaker Havrysh shortly before, practically coincides with that of the President. Other Deputies are divided into three groups. The first continues to insist that the presidential bill be amended in line with the CC remarks. The second believes the President’s proposals should be accepted as submitted to parliament. And, finally, the third group is already insisting on waiting for a decision on the parliamentary version and discussing it simultaneously with the presidential one. According to People’s Deputy Serhiy Kurykin, “discussing first the presidential and then the parliamentary bill will only confuse things. Both of them were simultaneously submitted to the CC by one decision, so the CC should have passed a simultaneous judgment on both. Failure to so means the CC willfully gave preference to the presidential bill. This may perhaps be excusable from the standpoint of the political situation. But from the perspective of the democratic development in this country, this is an absolutely unjustifiable decision.” Indeed, the formal equality of the two bills has been upset, for even if the alternative bill gets into the parliament hall next week, it will clearly be at a disadvantage to the presidential bill, with all that this implies.
Those who favor simultaneous discussion of both bills are well aware of this. According to Mr. Bezsmertny, the “emotional pitch of both sides is quite understandable. But in this case, both sides are responsible for the stable development of the state and its constitutional system, and the reform of this system. I still wonder if the authorities are able to fulfill the will of citizens or if they will show our citizens again that they (the citizens) have no impact on the affairs of state. Any decision of the people should be incorporated in the Constitution.” Nonetheless, one can foresee even now that “the people’s ‘will’ cut down twice” (the presidential bill only contains three out of four questions approved in the referendum) will not be adequately implemented. Take the most glaring example of the impasse: the wording on parliamentary immunity suggests that this immunity is in fact absolute, instead of being limited. Similar arguments can be also advanced with respect to other items of the bill. Perhaps both sides have opted for the exacerbation of political confrontation rather than for coordination and cooperation.
