Because of the frequent misinterpretations of the Law on financing political parties, MANS sent to the Constitutional Court the response on the initiative of a group of members of the Parliament from the DPS, CCI, BP, for the constitutionality review of the provisions of the law, so the judges, when deciding would have all legal arguments, bearing in mind that the Parliament ignored them.
Specifically, on February 28th, 2014, a group of members of the Parliament from mentioned parties filed a motion challenging the constitutionality of the provisions of almost all the key amendments to the Law on financing political parties. That proposal was submitted to the Parliament of Montenegro for the opinion, who for unintelligible reasons ignored the invitation of the Constitutional Court to offer answers to the allegations of the proposal, and no one else has the status of participant in the proceeding and the opportunity to respond to allegations of proposals of members of the Parliament.
Even if do not have such legal capacity, MANS submitted to the Constitutional Court key points, so the judges would not have a chance to refer to the lack of information, because of the lack of response of the Parliament.
The proposal from a group of members of Parliament of the ruling structure for the challenging of the constitutionality of the Law on amendments to the Law on financing political parties is entirely groundless and not understandable. Thus, the submitters of this proposal challenge the subject of the law, with the objection that it prescribes a series of prohibitions and restrictions, adding that it also violates a number of provisions of the Constitution not specifying which one, specifically for a reason that legislature has the constitutional authority to make laws and in those laws to prescribe prohibitions and restrictions.
Further, in the proposal it is arbitrary stated that with the disputed provisions application of other laws is derogated, but it is not specified which laws are in question. Additionally, the Constitutional Court is not competent to assess the coherence of the challenged law with other laws, which is also declared number of times in its decisions.
There is no doubt that the stated Law on financing political parties, including and its latest amendments, represents lex specialis that can and it aims to regulate financing of regular work and electoral campaigns of political parties, and to prevent the abuse of private and public funds and public authorities for the purposes of those campaigns and regular activities of political parties.
Law on amendments to the Law on financing political parties does not derogate any other law in the legal system of Montenegro, but restricts the use of certain rights and mechanisms regulated by other laws in a very short period just before and after the elections, in order to prevent influence on the voters’ free will by the parties in power, which is the foundation of democracy and legal system in Montenegro.
With that Law are protected the key provisions of the Constitution of Montenegro which provides that “the citizen exercises power directly or through freely chosen representatives”, and that “it can not be established or recognized power which is not derived from the freely chosen will of the citizens in a democratic elections in accordance with the law”, because it disables anyone who has the power in its hands, to influence the free will of citizens who have right to vote.
In that way it is directly protected and the Article of the Constitution which states that “the voter’s right is universal and equal”, and that “the elections are free and direct, and voting is secret”.
Law on financing political parties does not limit any kind of human right or freedom, just limits the scope for abuses in a way that prevents payments of any compensation in significantly greater amount than it is done out of the election process. It is legislature’s right to prescribe such decisions, regardless and also for a reason because that is contrary to the interests of those who have the greatest possibility for abuses.
Referring that human rights are allegedly violated with provisions that should suppress abuses and executions of the crimes committed in an organized manner, represents nothing than absurd similar to one in which the criminal would claim that is violated his right to the presumption of innocence, the right to privacy, the right to protection of personal data, the right to property, freedom and enterprise and the right to work, in a way that he is detected and prevented in the commission of a criminal act.
All mentioned shows that it is necessary and legitimate prescription of the prohibitions as it was done with the disputed law, with a reminder that the Constitutional Court is not competent to evaluate the expediency of legal provisions or practical reasons for their adoption, which are more than obvious.
Therefore, it appears that the proposal part of the ruling structure is obviously unfounded, based on the abuse of law and contrary to the obligations of Montenegro in the European integration process, and the obligations that the state has toward its citizens, and that is to restore confidence in the electoral process, which is the foundation of democracy and our legal system.
In this regard, MANS once again invites the Constitutional Court that in this case shows political objectivity and to make a decision to dismiss the proposal from a group of members of the Parliament from the ruling coalition and thus help, and not to slow down the process of European integration of Montenegro.
Finally, we invite citizens to report any violation of this regulation, actually the knowledge that the misuse of state funds occurred in any way.
MANS
