The statements from various political parties about the January 12 decision of the Constitutional Court to invalidate the presidential election of December 16 are merely political and should not be mistaken for legal opinions, Constitutional Judge Victor Puscas told the newspaper Moldavskie Vedomosti in an interview. Puscas regretted that throughout 16 years of the Court's existence everyone has been talking about the opportunity of its decisions, and not so much about their primary role of checking compliance with the Constitution. “Perhaps some critics are speculating how things would have developed had the Court ruled differently”, however, he suggested, the Court had no other choice but to confirm that the secret vote principle had been violated. Concerning the alleged usurpation of power, Judge Puscas said that so far no one has challenged, following the legal procedure, any act of the government as being illegal. “Except for acts on which the Court has already pronounced its decisions. So I see no illegal government here. One should not mistake political opinions, which operate with such notions as 'apparently', 'probably' or 'state power has been usurped', for judicial assessments. The law defines state usurpation as a forcible seizure of state power by persons or entities who haven't come to power in a legitimate way”, said Victor Puscas. “Legitimacy, as opposed to legality, is a socio-psychological phenomenon. Any authority elected by the people which passes laws, whether popular or not, and which is capable of enforcing them, is both legal and legitimate”, said Constitutional Judge Victor Puscas.