{On 22 December 2011 the Constitutional Court pronounced the judgment declaring unconstitutional the Law № 184 of 27 August 2011 in the part dealing with the procedure of its adoption by assumption of responsibility of the Government of the Republic of Moldova before Parliament pursuant to Article 106/1 of the Constitution. The Press Agency Info-Prim Neo conducted an interview on the topic with the President of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Moldova, Alexandru Tănase.} [ - Mr. President, some journalists have called the law which the Court declared unconstitutional as „anti-raider law”…] - In 1994 I graduated from one of the best Law Faculties in Romania, Al. I. Cuza University of Iaşi. I had exceptional professors but I have not heard from them about such a term like „raider attack”, just as I heard about the „anti-raider” laws. It is a notion of a suburban folklore which has no clear legal meaning. Unlike journalists, as a constitutional judge I cannot afford to use such a terminology. A lawyer must operate with legal terms and not with sayings. In this order of ideas, I want to specify that the object of complaint did not extend over the opportunity or content of the challenged legislative act. [ - It is for the second time in the history of the Republic of Moldova when the Government has assumed responsibility for a draft law. When this procedure was used for the first time, several ministers declared they did not understand what they voted for. ] - Not only ministers did not understand, even Prime Minister was not sure of the correct application of the institution of responsibility assumption by Government for a draft law. This procedure is not regulated in detail neither by Article 106 of the Constitution nor by Article 119 of the Rules of Parliament. In order to understand how to apply correctly this institution, Mr. Vlad Filat addressed to the Constitutional Court the letter № 1513-561 dated 6 October 2010 requesting interpretation of Article 106 prime of the Constitution in the part dealing with the mechanism of responsibility assumption by Government. The Court did not come to rule on this topic due to the fact that the Government and not the Prime Minister was a subject to appeal the Constitutional Court. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister has not promoted that referral through Government. Ultimately, if the referral were submitted, today would have been another situation. [ - What is in fact assumption of responsibility by Government?] - Assumption procedure of responsibility by Government before Parliament is peculiarity of legislative procedure according to which a draft law does not follow a legislative procedure foreseen by Rules of Parliament, that being subject to strictly political debates. The consequence of these policy debates is keeping or dismissal of Government by withdrawal of confidence granted to it by Parliament. In other words, the procedure of responsibility assumption by Government for a draft law is rather an instrument for verifying political support of the Government than an instrument of quick approval of laws. [ - How does the institution of assumption of responsibility function in other states?] - To give a correct solution in this case, the Court studied the practice of states where governments have frequently used assumption of responsibility before Parliament. Assumption of responsibility by Government in the form we have can be found only in two states: France and Romania. This procedure first appeared in the French Constitution in 1958. In 1991 this institution was taken over by the Constitution of Romania and on 5 July 2000 – by the one of the Republic of Moldova. In the remaining European states such procedures do not exist. The Court found one thing clear: in both states the legislator limited or seeks to limit abuse of executive power from this exceptional procedure. Both [in France and in Romania presence in Parliament of the exponent of executive power is compulsory.] In France, for instance, use of this procedure was considered to be exaggerated. Consequently, on 28 July 2008 a constitutional reform was approved for limiting the prerogative of responsibility assumption by Government only over draft laws referring to state budget or budget of social insurance but only once per Parliamentary session. The report of the Member of the National Assembly, Jean-Luc Warsmann, of 15 May 2008 on a draft constitutional law mentioned among others the following: {„such a procedure is not outrageous if it occurs after a wide debate in which all opinions could be expressed freely. Abuse occurs only when the Parliamentary discussion is suppressed […]”.} [ - What are the constitutionality issues raised by this law?] - As I mentioned, the substance of law has not been challenged. It was challenged only the adoption procedure. Namely, here the Court identified the biggest problems of unconstitutionality. The procedure responsibility assumption by Government is governed by Art. 106/1 of the Constitution. According to this article, the Government may assume responsibility [before Parliament] over a program, a general policy statement or a bill. We note that the constitutional provision is quite clear: assumption of responsibility takes place [before Parliament.] Contrary to this provision, the Government limited itself to adoption of a Government Decision which it sent to the Secretariat of Parliament. In this way, the parliamentarians without being convened in extraordinary session, {de facto} were deprived of the opportunity to discuss this project and raise a motion of censure. [ - Could the MPs submit a motion of censure without being convoked in extraordinary session?] - In this regard, the Court found that a political debate about Government’s dismissal by withdrawal of confidence granted to it might be held in terms of Article 106 of the Constitution only in the [plenary session of Parliament,] therefore, all procedures aiming as finality eventual resignation of Government must unfold [before Parliament,] it means, not in front of the Parliament Building, but in the [plenary session of Parliament.] Hence, [submission to the Parliament Secretariat of the Government Decision on assumption of responsibility together with the attached materials, without presentation of this political act of responsibility assumption in plenary session, does not meet the requirements of constitutional norms concerning assumption of responsibility „before” the Parliament.] These are constitutional provisions upon which the Court based its position. Since the text of Constitution does not describe the whole mechanism of responsibility assumption by Government, the Court interpreted certain constitutional texts. [ - Which are these interpretations?] - The first interpretation refers to the time within which a motion of censure may be raised. The Court ruled that outside Parliamentary sessions the procedure of responsibility assumption by Government is conditioned by calling an extraordinary or special session and the period of 3 days for filing the motion runs from the moment of presentation in the plenum of Parliament of a draft law on which the Government assumes its responsibility. The second is based on the need to ensure transparency in the governing process. In this context, the Court held that the procedure of responsibility assumption by Government before Parliament required mandatory publishing in the Official Gazette (Monitorul Oficial) of the Republic of Moldova not just the text itself of Government decisions but the full text of draft laws subject to this procedure. [ - Were there any other reasons for unconstitutionality?] There was a serious problem related to breach of constitutional terms. Decision № 633 on assumption of responsibility by Government entered into force on 26 August 2011 when it was published in the Official Gazette. Until the publication, Government decisions are considered to be non-existent in conformity with Article 102 of the Constitution. A day away, on 27 August the Law was promulgated and published in the Official Gazette. Accordingly, the Court found that promulgation and publication of Law № 184 on 27 august 2011, within 1 day after publication of the Government Decision in the Official Gazette (26 August 2011), was held in violation of the constitutional deadline of 3 days provided for filing the motion of censure. Moreover, it is relevant that the Academy of Sciences of Moldova shares the same opinion. [ - Taking into account the situation in the banking system at that time, is it possible that the Government had no choice when it decided to resort to this procedure?] - I cannot comment on the rationale of Government to assume responsibility for this draft law. From what we have established, blocking of illicit transactions took place as a result of the Supreme Court decision and not as a result of assumption of responsibility by the Government. The Government representative at the meeting of the Court confirmed that upon decision’s adoption in this case the Supreme Court of Justice has not applied any modified norm by assumption of responsibility by Government. [Valeriu Vasilică, Info-Prim Neo ]