Separation of careers, Di Marco (Anf): “The comparison is necessary, the reform cannot be written with newspaper headlines”
Marco Lepri, president of Anf Roma: "Balanced provision, we lawyers have been asking for the separation of careers for years"
ROME – The method of discussion should be “daily” when “reforms that affect the Constitution are addressed”. This was said by Giampaolo Di Marco, lawyer, general secretary of the National Forensic Association, at the end of the conference‘Separated or divided? – Reflections on the government bill on the separation of careers, dialogue between the legal profession, judiciary, legal doctrine and politics, organized by National Forensic Association and UniMarconi.
“Ours is a position of strong opposition. If there is one thing that justice does not need, in our opinion it is constitutional reform. The danger is that they will alter consolidated balances that have allowed the Italian judiciary, with flaws and errors that belong to human experience, to be a co-protagonist of the country’s democratic growth with this constitutional structure“. The magistrate and president of the ANM, Giuseppe Santalucia, says this on the sidelines of the conference. According to Santalucia “it’s a bit of a leap in the dark to touch” the constitutional structure “because it alters a balance and it won’t be easy to re-establish it”.
The constitutional reform of justice, he points out, “is developing in a context of aversion towards the judiciary, the control of legality is experienced with intolerance by a large part of the political class“. Reason why, according to the president of the ANM, “jurists should evaluate it not only from an abstract point of view, of constitutional geometries, but also evaluate its genesis and the motivations which are those of containing the judicial power considered by some to be excessive and invasive. Let’s start from this and analyze the reforms because law is politics, legal issues cannot be analyzed without political issues, especially when we talk about constitutional law”. Since “it is a constitutional project and therefore a medium-long term reform”. Santalucia makes it known that “we will implement initiatives to explain the reasons for the opposition”, but “we will not do anything that could appear as a corporate closure to the reform”, on the part of the magistrates “we it will be an attempt to explain as widely as possible the reasons for opposition. I think there will be a referendum in the prospect that they will not reach a two-thirds parliamentary majority and therefore it is good that the national community, given that it is the first reform of the Fourth title of the Constitution, think about it”.
SEPARAZIONE CARRIERIE, VERINI (PD): “THE REFORM IS MESSED, IT WANTS HIT THE MAGISTRATES“
“We are against” justice reform. If it served “to solve justice problems, to speed up trials, to clear up backlogs, to give citizens an answer, let’s discuss it“. But “it is a divisive, bungled, badly made measure”. Walter Verini, Democratic Party senator, says so on the sidelines of the conference.
“Mantovano, undersecretary to the Presidency of the Council, said it well: in fact the separation already exists and is in Cartabia. What need is there for the reform? In reality, in our opinion we want to deal a bit of a blow to the judiciary, to its independence“, points out Verini, according to whom, “assuming the reform goes ahead, there is a risk to make the figure of the PM police-like. While today the PM, by its nature, must seek the procedural truth, the incriminating evidence, but also any exculpatory evidence. Instead, put it only on the police level, I would say more than police, the figure of the PM ultimately risks even damaging the citizen for whom the presumption of innocence applies”. Therefore, adds the PD parliamentarian, “we think that the provision is also wrong for other contents, for example the draw to elect the members of the CSM: it seems that the judiciary and the magistrates do not have the strength, the ability to choose, in quotes, the bestIt is not true that one is worth one, as a draw might suggest.” Therefore, concludes Verini, “in our opinion the provision is a bit of a flag, as a flag are the differentiated autonomy for the League and the premiership for Meloni. This is necessarily Italy, they wanted to flaunt it before the elections. I hope that neither this measure nor the other two see the light.”
CARRIERE SEPARATION, ZANETTIN (FI): “THE REFORM RECOVERS THE DROP-IN OF TRUST IN THE JUDICIARY”
“We are absolutely in favor of the fact that the separation of careers between prosecuting and prosecutorial judiciary has finally arrived judicial judiciary. It was one of the strong themes of our electoral program and will certainly be implemented through this process of constitutional reform“. Forza Italia senator Pierantonio Zanettin says so on the sidelines of the conference. According to the Forza Italia parliamentarian “we need to start from one fact: the dramatic decline in trust that the judiciary has seen in our country. For a few years we have started from levels that were close to 90%, today we are at 30%. So we absolutely need to recover this trust, this credibility and the judge must truly be and appear third and impartial”. From this point of view, Zanettin points out, “the separation of careers between the prosecuting judiciary and the judging judiciary is absolutely essential. We want, and we repeat it on every occasion, a PM who calls ‘ to the judge as to the ‘You’ gives the lawyer. He is exactly on the same step, on the same level and this will certainly restore credibility to the judiciary and will be able to allow fairer and fairer trials“.
Furthermore, continues the blue senator, “within this constitutional plan there are other important reforms which concern above all the Superior Council of the Judiciary and therefore the possibility that to cut the claws of the currents the professional component, but also the lay one, will be drawn. And this is certainly a way to sever those ties, that umbilical cord that has spoiled the relationship between the currents and the judiciary”. Finally, concludes Zanettin, there is also the High Court which, “by taking disciplinary responsibility away from the Superior Council of the Judiciary, which in the past was polluted by currents, will also be able to restore credibility to the disciplinary responsibility it had in the years of absolutely unsatisfactory outcomes. So that when the judge makes a mistake he finds a sanction, which up to now has been very tenuous and inadequate”.