propose again the following article written by me in the monthly "Freedom and the Future" in December 2009 regarding parliamentary immunity.
When, in 1947, the founding fathers wrote, discussed and approved the Article 68 of the Constitution the instrument of parliamentary immunity, they did not because they were dangerous subversives, but to preserve the legislative power - the only body elected by election that the people - from possible intrusions and invasions of the field by those who were to administer the judiciary. The founding fathers were not fools, and certainly did not suffer from delusions of persecution, as I like to think, today, who rides the wave of the "no immunity", since, De Gasperi, Togliatti, Saragat or major statesmen and representatives of the mass parties of the time, had known the dangers of a directly politicized judiciary as had happened during the Fascist period. It was necessary, therefore, a valuable counterweight to protect those who received the investiture by the people, by a judiciary which could have had such a resurgence of undermine the guarantee function of the Judiciary which is the basis for the proper functioning of state power. We opted for the right to parliamentary immunity, which provided the authorization of the Chamber of membership of each Member or Senator before being subjected to criminal proceedings, arrest and search warrants.
legitimate tool that has worked well for half a century until in 1993 the ruling class, especially the one related to PCI in order to satisfy popular sentiment, triggered by them, which was engulfing an entire system, decided to "grant" to the people, the removal of parliamentary immunity, redrafting Article 68 of the Constitution in record time, as in the drafting and final approval of the text a bit more than one hundred days (it is a constitutional amendment requires two steps for each room, with an interval of three months to vote) and as usual in politics as in life, things done too quickly often end up being wrong and counterproductive. Removed any reference to the authorization of the initiative on education and judicial maintained, albeit in a less rigid, only the authorization to intercept and preventive arrests. It was time to "Tangentopoli", of "Tintin in handcuffs" easy, as a means of preventive detention to extract confessions, was the time of pennies and a First Republic was leaving us with blows of judgments. So ended the era of the Arch Constitution, to give way to the Second Republic, with a much different political landscape than a few years before. As mentioned, the changes do not always bring benefits, and so there has been a political power halved, lame, held in check by the judiciary, which often has forgotten that acts as collateral to fight the "political enemy" of the moment and try to impose blows to the investigation of its own policy. In the last fifteen years it has often happened that the legislature suffer dangerous invasions of the field of the judiciary that have often led it to assume the right and duty to decide important matters. These days the majority of Government's proposal to reintroduce parliamentary immunity is attracting much controversy, because many would see the proposal as a kind of impunity. In free and legitimate, clearly wrong, but it felt to see that those who think this way of immunity it is exercised in the European Parliament as they did (the recent history teaches) Massimo D'Alema first and then Antonio Di Pietro. Also on this occasion the left shows the "no party" or, more likely aims to maintain a status quo that suits saw the sympathy of many members of the judiciary to his ideas, for keep in check a legitimate government, or only some members who do not follow party directives. Look at today and not think about tomorrow is certainly not the best solution, unless you want to stay back from the major European democracies such as England, Germany and Spain, which all provide in their legislation for the establishment of immunity.
0 comments:
Post a Comment