The Referendum, the no to Onida: “should Not enter into the merit” of your questions – the guardian

ROME, Despite the “rejection” of his appeal on the heterogeneity of the title of the constitutional referendum — enacted in 22 pages of motivation by dr. Loreta Dorigo, ordinary civil court of Milan, the former president of the Constitutional Court, Valerio Onida, has not wanted to change the program. Flew to Brussels for a comparison at the Italian Institute of culture among the reasons of No and those of You supported by professor Carlo Fusaro. Of course, with a favourable decision on the urgent petition submitted together with the colleague Barbara Randazzo, the climate of the “duel” which was invited Onida would have been another.

Disappointed professor?
“I would Say that the motivation of the judge is complex and appears to be “exhausting” because it amounted to several reasons among them is not complementary, but alternative, of the nature of the case. And then goes into the merits…”.

expect from the judge a reason for its terse, limited to the manifest unfounded nature of the appeal?
“So, entering into the merits, the judge makes the job of the constitutional Court. Is a study, with a long and detailed examination of the question of constitutional legitimacy of article 138. Examination that, in fact, would be accomplished by its natural partner: the Constitutional Court”. “.

Also many of the figures in front of No, the League and the M5S, have welcomed the decision of the court: “The date of 4 December is save,” they said.
“There has been an interpretation mischievous but our aim has never been to postpone the referendum thinking maybe a advantage for the No or for You. We have only raised, in order to be referred to the Council, a fundamental question which concerns the right of the voters to express themselves on questions from homogeneous. And also the Court seems to have misunderstood the practical objective of the appeal”.

But the judge, in rejecting the appeal, complains that the root of your thesis, remembering how it would be “artificial” and “illegitimate” to proceed to the “possible division of the questions”.
“the argument of The Court seems to confirm that the referendum propose one or more amendments to the text of the constitution but a “revision of the Constitution”, i.e. a comprehensive reform desired by a legislator “function to a constituent” on which the voter can only express an overall political judgment of ratification beyond the consent or dissent on the individual parts of it.”

Impugnerete the decision?
“We reserve the right to activate the other remedies, courts, including the appeal to the Court of Cassation”.

© REPRODUCTION RESERVED

November 10, 2016 (change the 10 November 2016 | 22:51)

© REPRODUCTION RESERVED