The art. 104 says one thing right:
the judiciary is autonomous and independent of any other power.
This principle is not in question.
The point, however, is another.
It is not enough to assert independence.
It is necessary to analyze the concrete mechanism by which the bodies that govern the judiciary are formed.
🔴 THE TROJAN HORSE 🔴
With the reform:
• 1/3 of the members are drawn from a list made by Parliament, i.e. by the political majority that governs at that moment.
• The Constitution does not say with which majority (simple or qualified) that list must be formed: therefore whoever governs can do so according to their own interests.
• The rules are left to a future ordinary law, which is not known today and which can be made or modified by the majority on duty: today the right, tomorrow the left.
🔴 THE DECEPTION OF THE COMBINED IN ART. 3 OF THE NEW REFORM 🔴
• list of (lay) professionals decided by the majority of the moment, therefore only people of that political current;
• draw tied to that list of people of that political current, therefore controlled;
• rules entrusted to an ordinary law that is not known today, therefore modifiable, most likely, for political interests.
When the rules are modifiable, the guarantee can also become modifiable.
And when the guarantee depends on the majority of the moment, that is, on politics, the balance between powers is weakened.
It is obvious that with this new reform the powerful would no longer respond to the law like a normal citizen.
No powerful person will vote no.
This is what we find in the art. 3 of the reform. It is an objective fact.
Independence is not just a declaration.
It is the concrete way in which the rules are constructed.
WE VOTE NO
TO DEFEND THE BALANCE OF POWER AND NOT TO STRENGTHEN POLITICAL POWER.
⚖️ FOLLOW: @ethos.civile (Instagram).