What's important for Silvio Berlusconi is to choose the judges to rise back to the misfortune of Milan. The claim. If you want, the news is this: in civilized Europe - and not in the Maghreb - is a head of government who claims to be able to decide for himself the identity of the prosecutor and the judge, the place of his trial, and then scrutinize also the sentence. Thinks he can do by abusing his political power and waving three spells and definitive: " jurisdiction of the court "," prosecution process "," suspend proceedings . "The Sovereign, closed in his villa, surrounded by his lawyers, decided against the empire of law and the Constitution that those decisions are the prerogative of Parliament, and therefore the majority or controlling pay.
was written that Berlusconi moved along the road to an illegal institution. "It will be an intervention Parliament which will remove the case to the prosecutor in Milan. "The prime minister says January 18, Tuesday. Villa San Martino brings together the" Table of crisis ", lawyers, counselors, Consigliori, some minister, apparently. Reading collective of the 389 pages of the invitation to appear in the Milan prosecutors. despondency for the clergy by a strong stomach: it is true, they conclude, in these papers there are "clear evidence" of two crimes (extortion, child prostitution), which are reported to the head of government. It is immediately clear (Republic, 26 January) that the defense will not be Berlusconi's "technical" and especially not happen in court. That process can be won in Rome and the "line of Piave "will of Parliament. Political power will have to stop the steps of the judiciary and prevent any finding of liability. Accustomed to use the room as his shop, Berlusconi has ordered the lawyers will be appointed to" remove the case to the prosecutor of Milan ". The next day, Jan. 19 Wednesday, Napolitano makes a mockery of the appeal to" make things clear because the country is troubled and Squaderno the plot: "The facts that I alleged were committed in the capacity as President of the Council the prosecutor should have sent all the documents to the Court of Ministers. It is very serious that the attorney should continue to investigate without being entitled to do so. "Immediately after the shyster Sovereign of the confused and intricate issues to hide the institutional violence of the moves of the Knight.
What is discussed is easier than you might imagine. The question is always, in every step of this story: Who should decide? Berlusconi can not investigate claims that the prosecutor in Milan, but the Court of Ministers for the crime, if crime there was, it is ministerial. Without discussing whether the crime (concussion) was held in the President's Council (Ministerial offense) or the quality of its public accountability (common crime), who must decide whether to investigate the Prosecutor or the Court of Ministers? In an ordinary procedure, with an ordinary defendant, the issues of jurisdiction is in the process raise the possibility of challenge and appeal to the Supreme Court. Mr Berlusconi is not there. He wants to confiscate the courts decision and assign the natural unlawfully Parliament that is to say, attributing it to himself. Order the House votes in favor of the Court of Ministers, as if this were to close the affair.
In Parliament, the head of government has two cards to play: the conflict of competence and admissibility. Here too we must not be frightened by the formulas. The jurisdictional dispute was just raised by the majority. The rhyme is always the same: the Milan public prosecutor's office has given a power that has no ministerial because the offense is not its responsibility. Now the Constitutional Court will decide. At least on this there are no objections. Although some attempts at conditioning emerges. There is some illiterate advocating moral suasion of the Head of State on the constitutional judges while to get into this force, the shyster mention it heads a ruling by the Court (Case No. 241 of 2009) which upheld the complaint of conflict proposal Minister Matteoli. This sentence has nothing to do with the affair Berlusconi. On the contrary, gives a hand to those who rightly argues that it is not for the Chamber to determine whether the offense was a ministerial character and competence to carry out investigations and then the Court of Ministers. On that occasion, as the Court in the case Matteoli, the House has claimed "the exclusive power to appreciate the ministerial character of the offense." Asked only of "being able to express, according to the specified intervals of procedure, a self-evaluation in this regard." If Berlusconi, the Chamber has already expressed his "independent assessment" on the "ministerial character of the offense" of bribery (the searching of ball Accountant paying the girl Arcore). Even if wacky procedures, it could still repeat them with a resolution of "admissibility". The assessment of the Parliament, as qualified, can not seize the powers of the court in Milan as the House did not - in fact - "the power to enjoy exclusively the ministerial character of the offense."
The second paper is that Berlusconi intends to play the admissibility. This is also a Papocchia if we ask: who decides? Parliament can not process it declined jurisdiction. He does not deserve. It is not among its powers. The way things are. The Court of Ministers is not a judge. He works as a prosecutor in proceedings in common. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Court of Ministers if they believe that the suspect deserves the trial, asked the Parliament for authorization to proceed. If permission is denied, the Court of Ministers notes that there are no conditions for admissibility laid down by law and provided for the storage of the proceedings. Can do no more. L '"admissibility", therefore, can and should be ordered only by the Court of Ministers and only as the result of the refusal of the unsurpassed to proceed. A declaration of admissibility is not within the competence of Parliament, which has no power to deny prior authorization is not required. If he does, is an abuse, an act of institutional violence. It remains the last question, the suspension of the proceedings. Who decides? Again, there is no doubt. Neither the jurisdictional dispute or a parliamentary resolution fantasist of "admissibility" can paralyze the process of Milan. It is the third Berlusconi claims that abuse of power. Requires that in any case the process hangs. Even this claim is illegitimate. Let's see what happens to the jurisdictional dispute. You have to read the "rules on the establishment and functioning Constitutional Court Act (Mar. 11, 1953, n. 87). Even a layman understands, reading art. 37 and the provisions of Article 23, which the court, suspend the proceedings in progress only when the issue not manifestly unfounded and so far it was clear to the court of Milan. Who decides? It is the question that will commit the Parliament, the ordinary courts, the Constitutional Court. As of now it must be said that, two centuries dall'Ancien Régime, or the 'defendant nor his government nor a majority of appointed and bought may decide the process as required by our despotic head of government.
Giuseppe D'Avanzo
0 comments:
Post a Comment