The Democrat-Liberal leaders lobbied, on Monday, in Ploiesti, for the need to revise the Constitution, during a debate on the modification of the supreme law.
The deputy president of the Democrat Liberal Party (PDL), Sever Voinescu, argued that the present Constitution was “deeply flawed” and needed to be modified entirely. “This Constitution is deeply flawed. We should have drafted a brand-new Constitution, modified all through. Few things from the present Constitution should be maintained,” Voinescu argued.
The Democrat-Liberal deputy argued that “severe blocks occurred in the exercise of political power”, to which the present fundamental law “failed to provide solutions”. “I would have liked us to build a Constitution in which the executive power is wielded by a man directly elected, in which the legislative power is made up of a group of people, called the Parliament, directly elected, and in which the judiciary power is, on the whole, exercised by people elected, in turn,” the deputy president of PDL stated. When asked which provisions in the present Constitution should be maintained, in his opinion, Voinescu replied that he would maintain those referring to rights and liberties, the principle of the separation of powers and the article regarding the limits within which the Constitution can be revised.
“I want us to draw up a Constitution which would bring us back to the teachings of the classics. Every time we tried to innovate, it all went wrong. I no longer want the MP to do what the magistrate should do. (…) I no longer want us to have a Government which floods us with emergency ordinances and taking responsibility before Parliament. Most of these matters are addressed in this bill. It is a bill which will bring us back to the foundations of democracy,” Voinescu added. At the same time, the deputy stated that he did not back the proposal that MPs should have the right to vote on whether their colleagues, who are protected by legal immunity, should undergo house searches or be arrested, adding that, by this provision, the principle of the separation of powers is violated, as this is the prerogative of the prosecutor.
The Chamber of Deputies Speaker Roberta Anastase, also present at the debate, pleaded, in turn, for the modification of the Constitution. Anastase argued, as well, that the bill to revise the Constitution does not bring fundamental changes, as it does not modify the relations between the three powers, but merely makes some “clarifications” as regards these relations. She further argued that the present ruling coalition should find a way to help the bill through Parliament, as its adoption will take a higher number of votes than the one the current parliamentary majority can secure at the moment. “This is why it is important to discuss, to try, through our efforts, to find solutions which can be, between inverted commas, negotiated, which will ensure we have a bill which can pass through Parliament,” Anastase stated.
In turn, Valeriu Stoica explained that the proposal to eliminate, from the Constitution, the provision according to which a wealth is presumed to have been made by legal means did not presume a reversion to the pre-1989 unlawful wealth law and that this proposal did not imply the presumption of lawfulness would be eliminated. He argued that “the matter is misrepresented deliberately, thus creating a false perception.”
On the other hand, the opposition has a different stand on the topic of lawfully-made wealth. The president of the Social-Democrat Party (PSD), Victor Ponta, announced, on Monday, that the Social Liberal Union had finished drafting the bill for the confiscation of unlawfully-made wealth, which proposes that the assets belonging to persons charged with illegal actions should be seized unless the person can prove they were obtained by lawful means.