The decision of the Supreme Administrative Court on February 8, 2013 is a death sentence for the Ukrainian parliamentarism, the sentence for the Verkhovna Rada. Death sentence for competitive politics. Because the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court had killed not only the significance of Constitution articles on the independence of the legislative power, but, and this is the worst, killed a political tradition of unshakable political immunity of the Parliament.
Under the Constitution, the powers of the Ukrainian deputy can be terminated earlier in the event of: 1) resignation at his personal request. 2) the entry into force of a guilty verdict against him 3) his recognition by the court to be incompetent or missing 4) suspension of citizenship or permanent residence out from Ukraine 5) death.
According to the official interpretation of the Constitutional Court of 13.05.1997 a decision on the deprivation of Ukrainian deputy's authority is adopted by the majority of the constitutional composition of the Verkhovna Rada.
Could Baloha and Dombrovskyy who became deputies on the basis of decisions of the Ukrainian CEC of Ukraine, took the oath of a deputy and registered as such in the VR apparatus have been deprived of authority? To answer this question according to the law it is not necessary to have a legal education, it is enough to get a grasp of one paragraph of the Constitution, where everything is set out very clearly. Or can we now revoke anything retroactively? I wonder if the new tradition takes roots will the next President (and we will have a next President), in the same format revise the current deputy authority of the current majority? And along with it their property rights?
The real reason was explained to Censor.NET by a source in the Party of Regions. According to him, Pavlo Baloha and Oleksandr Domrovskyy before the election campaign have written applications for membership in the Party of Regions after the election. However, they did not fulfill their promises. The decision of the Supreme Administrative Court is a revenge for two people, and intimidation for other deputies.
Obviously, the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court is a purely political act, which has no legal basis and cannot be appealed. What are the possible consequences of the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court?
1. Authorities decided to manage the Parliament solely with the whip. Example of Baloha and Dombrovskyy is primarily meant as a lesson for the Party of Regions itself. Entrance costs a dollar, while exit - two. And this will happen to every dissident in the ranks of the faction. But will the parliamentary majority become manageable and agreeable after this execution? Will members of the Party of Regions fight for their party in fear of reprisals?
2. The opposition now simply has to achieve the restoration of parliamentary powers of Baloha and Dombrovskyy. If the opposition even after the sensor buttons will return to normal work in the session hall, where two of their colleagues had been thrown out by the Supreme Administrative Court, such opposition is not worth a penny. The regime does not want to give in, and it creates a powerful new reason to block the work of the Rada for an indefinite period.
3. The decision of the Supreme Administrative Court makes all the other decisions of this Parliament illegal, because Baloha and Dombrovskyy voted for them. So on February 8 and the Parliament leaders, and the distribution of all the committees of the Parliament, and all the bills that have been passed - all these decisions are illegal. Because they involved two citizens who do not have the authority. So pack your bags, Mr. Rybak. The Rada is no more.