Resignation of a Member of Parliament – The Disputed Essence of the 5th Paragraph of the 39th Article of the Constitution of Georgia and a Practice Leading to its Unconstitutional Interpretation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.60131/jlaw.2.2022.7026Keywords:
Constitution, termination of powers of the Member of Parliament, interpretation of the constitutional norm, free mandateAbstract
The Constitution of Georgia stipulates that the mandate of a member of the Parliament will be terminated before the expiration of the term if he/she submits a personal application for terminating his/her powers to Parliament. Based on this norm, in December 2020, 54 opposition MPs applied to the Parliament with the request to terminate their parliamentary powers. They initiated "boycotting" the Parliament of the tenth convocation and tried to express their political protest by refusing the authority of a member of the Parliament. In response to this, the Parliament of Georgia did not satisfy the request of 51 members of the Parliament to terminate their powers before the expiration of the term. This decision of the parliamentary majority is based on a new interpretation of the constitutional norm, which has become the subject of controversy.
This article discusses the controversial content of Article 39, Clause 5 of the Constitution of Georgia and presents an analysis of its interpretation. Based on the methods of interpretation of the norm, the shortcomings of the interpretation proposed by the Parliament have been checked and the corresponding shortcomings have been identified. In the context of the decision made by the Parliament, a discussion is presented on the relationship between the interpretation and construction of the constitutional norm. In addition, the article discusses the relationship between the termination of the powers of the member of the parliament and the free mandate of the decision-making deputies
References
Constitution of Georgia, 24/08/1995.
Constitution of Sweden, 1974 (rev. 2012).
Constitution of Ukraine, 1996 (rev. 2016).
Constitution of Türkiye, 1982 (rev. 2017).
Rules of Procedure of the Parliament of Georgia, 06.12.2018.
Resolution #153-IVმს-Xმპ of the Parliament of Georgia from February 2, 2021.
Resolution of the Parliament of Georgia of January 4, 2021 #53-IIრს-Xმპ;
Resolution of the Parliament of Georgia of January 4, 2021 #54-IIრს-Xმპ;
Resolution of the Parliament of Georgia of January 4, 2021, #55-IIრს-Xმპ
Resolution of the Parliament of Georgia, May 25, 2021 N487-IVმს-Xმპ.
Conclusion of the Procedural Issues and Rules Committee of the Parliament of Georgia dated January 28, 2021 #-2-882/21.
Minutes of the Meeting of the Procedural Issues and Rules Committee of the Parliament of Georgia on January 28, 2021 #13.
Barnett R.E., Interpretation and Construction, Georgetown Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper, 34 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol’y, 65-72, 2011, 66.
Burke E., The Writings and Speeches of Edmund Burke, Vol. 3, eds. P. Langford and W. B. Todd, Oxford University Press, 1996, 63.
Chafetz J., Leaving the House: The Constitutional Status of Resignation from the House of Representatives, Duke Law Journal, Vol. 58, no. 2, 2008, 226.
Chmyha A., The Legal Grounds of Emergence and Termination of Mandates of Members of Parliaments in Belarus and Poland: a Comparative Analysis, Biaostockie Studia Prawnicze, Vol. 24, #4, 143-152, 2019, 149.
Demetrashvili A., Kobakhidze I., Constitutional Law, Tbilisi, 2011, 210 (in Georgian).
Eremadze K., Fundamental Rights for Freedom, Tbilisi, 2020, 8 (in Georgian).
Goldsworthy J., Interpreting Constitutions: A Comparative Study, Oxford University Press, 2006, 102.
Hamilton A., Madison J., Jay J., The Federalist Papers (1788), Rossister C. (ed.), Signet Classics, 2003, letters #57 and #78.
Iliec C., Analytical Perspectives on Parliamentary and Extra-parliamentary Discourses, Journal of Pragmatics 42, no.4, 2010, Jones P., Berrington H., Party, Parliament and Personality: Essays Presented to Hugh Berrington, London, Routledge, 879-884, 1995, 880.
Khetsuriani J., The Authority of the Constitutional Court of Georgia on the Issues of Constitutionality of Recognition or Early Termination of the Powers of a Member of the Parliament, Justice and Law, #3 (42)14, 2014, 19 (in Georgian).
Laundy P., Parliaments in the Modern World, Dartmouth, 1989, 11.
Linn S., Sobolewski F., The German Bundestag: Functions and Procedures: Organisation and Working Methods: the Legislation of the Federation, NDV, 2015, 11-12;
Locke J., Two Treatises of Government, ed. P. Laslett (ed.), Cambridge University Press, 1999, 366-367.
Mill J. S., Considerations on Representative Government [1861], Prometheus Books, 1991, 118.
O'Donnell G., Delegative Democracy (1994), from Politics and Democracy, ed. Nabakhteveli E., Intellect Publishing House, Tbilisi, 2020, 263 (in Georgian);
Pakte P., Melen-Sukramaniani F., Constitutional Law, 28th edition (as of July 2009), Tbilisi, 2012, 49, 93 (in Georgian).
Rai S.M., Johnson, R.E., Democracy in practice: Ceremony and Ritual in Parliament, Palgrave Macmillan, 2014, 21.
Redish M. H., Arnould M. B., Judicial Review, Constitutional Interpretation, and the Democratic Dilemma: Proposing a “Controlled Activism” Alternative, 64 Fla. L. Rev. 2012, 1486, 1489.
Sajó A., Uitz, R., The Constitution of Freedom: An Introduction to Legal Constitutionalism, Oxford University Press. 2017, 221.
Sajó A., Limiting Government: An Introduction to Constitutionalism (1999), publishing house “Sezani”, T. Ninidze (ed.), Trans. M. Maisuradze, 2003, 62, 95-96, 137 (in Georgian).
Scalia A., Wood G., Tribe L., Glendon M., Dworkin R., A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law, Gutmann A. (ed.), Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1997, 17, 23.
Solum L. B., The Interpretation-Construction Distinction, Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works, 95-118, 2010, 101-102.
Strøm K., Mueller W.C., Bergman T., Delegation and Accountability in Parliamentary Democracies, Oxford University Press, 2005, 354.
Van Der Hulst M., The Parliamentary Mandate: A Global Comparative Study, Studies on Comparative Parliamentary Law, Inter-Parliamentary Union, Geneva, 2000, 9.
Venice Commission, Opinion on the Amendments to the Rules of Procedure of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, adopted by the Venice Commission at its 112th Plenary Session (Venice, 6-7 October 2017);
Venice Commission, Parameters on the Relationship between the Parliamentary Majority and the Opposition in a Democracy: a checklist, adopted by the Venice Commission at its 119th Plenary Session (Venice, 21-22 June 2019), 25.
Zippelius R., Juristische Methodenlehre (10th Revised Edition), München, 2006, 28, 53, 75, 88 (in Georgian).
Constitutional complaint #1565 and #1569 of February 10 and 16, 2021.
Decision #3/1/659 of the Constitutional Court of Georgia dated February 15, 2017 on the case - Georgian citizen Omar Zorbenadze against the Parliament of Georgia, II-20.
Decision No. 3/2/1473 of the Constitutional Court of Georgia dated September 25, 2020 on the case - Nikanor Melia vs. Parliament of Georgia, II-7.
Karácsony and others v. Hungary [GC], European Court of Human Rights, Application nos. 42461/13 and 44357/13, Judgment of 17 May 2016.
Gorzelik and Others v. Poland [GC], European Court of Human Rights, Application no. 44158/98, Judgment of 17 February, 2004.
Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, U.S Supreme Court, 1969
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
