What Constitutes a Constitutional Court?
Last Wednesday, the Czech Constitutional Court rejected the complaint of many members of Parliament that the recent election of the President was flawed. The MPs' complaint focused on the fact that the President was elected by Parliament by a margin of only one vote, while one MP was being held in custody on charges, of which he was immediately acquitted after the President's election. Knowing that the imprisoned MP was running for President against the man who eventually won, the MPs' complaint to the Constitutional Court seemed to be reasonable.
Remarkably, the Czech Constitutional Court decided that it was not within its jurisdiction to judge matters pertaining to the election of the President. Judge Vojtech Cepl announced that he wasn't quite sure which organ had responsibility to review such matters, but he seemed certain that it wasn't the Constitutional Court.
When one looks at the Czech Constitution, one notices that the election of the President is clearly regulated by various articles under heading number three (hlava treti). Looking further, one sees that the Constitutional Court is the judicial organ responsible for defending the constitution (hlava ctvrta, cl. 83). Seeing that the presidential election is governed by the constitution, it would seem clear to the average observer that the Constitutional Court has jurisdiction here.
Judge Cepl's inability to state who does have jurisdiction looks highly irregular and suspicious. In most countries, various organs and branches of government often compete to expand their competence and influence, so a case where officials are rejecting responsibility and power should make everyone stand up and take notice.
The fact is, this case is rotten. Cepl's reluctance to touch it was practically an admission of the case's merit. The Court knew very well that the President's election was terribly flawed, but in light of the popularity of the President and the infamy of the jailed MP, the Court refused hear it.
The greatest shame of the whole scandalous affair is the paradox that the re-elected President used to be internationally known for fighting for democracy and human rights by using the old regime's (human rights) laws against it. Pointing out discrepancies between the law and reality used to be his main weapon. Now, it seems that once in power, he can ignore those discrepancies when they present inconveniences for him.
People expect more from individuals who took a difficult moral stance in troubled times, but when those individuals come to power, it seems that people are fooled again and again.
Please don't bother telling me that the MP imprisoned and the MPs that supported the complaint are all deplorable fascists. I know that. The point is that the law applies to everyone - even to people whose ideas we abhor. If democratic standards are not applied to everyone, they apply to no one. The offended party will continue with its complaint before an international forum, perhaps a all-European organ. Not for the Republicans' sake but for democracy's sake, I wish this case every success.