the opinion of the promoting committee
The Committee promoting the referendum confirming the constitutional law “The judiciary. Judicial system and judicial council “, takes note of the judgment of inadmissibility of the same and intends to express evaluations in this regard. The Committee is amazed at the speed with which the Board of Guarantors has deliberated. The hearing was held on Thursday 23 December, starting shortly after 9.30 and ending around 10.30. The resolution came shortly after. Secondly, the Organizing Committee regrets that the evaluations supporting the admissibility of the referendum were not mentioned in the judgment of the Guarantor Board. The qualified law n. 1/2013 regarding the referendum provides, in art. 25, the possibility of a confirmatory referendum of popular initiative ONLY for laws concerning organs, organisms and fundamental powers of the State. Therefore, surely the constitutional law n. 1/2021 falls within this provision.
In fact, no foreclosure appears in the qualified law n. 1/2013 as to whether the law for which submission to referendum is requested is constitutional or not. In the opinion of the Organizing Committee, the sentence of the Guarantor Board did not take into account in any way the provisions of art. 25 of the qualified law n. 1/2013, which changed the rules of the referendum. So under what conditions can a confirmatory referendum be submitted? In fact, the Guarantor Board refers to the sentence of the Guarantor Board no. 1 of 2006. In this valuable sentence, the Guarantor Board had invited the legislator to clarify – after the news represented by law 36/2002, which had introduced a referendum procedure defined as “necessary” in case of approval of constitutional laws without reaching of the quorum of 2/3 of the Directors – as regards the survival of the provisions of the then art. 27 of the law n. 101/1994, which regulated the confirmatory referendum of popular initiative.
The Great and General Council in 2013 confirmed that the confirmatory referendum of popular initiative survives for the laws, organs, bodies and fundamental powers of the State, thus having to be understood as a concurrent referendum to the “necessary” one introduced by law no. 36/2002. And indeed, the current art. 25 of the qualified law n. 1/2013 has even extended the scope of application with respect to art. 27 of the law n. 101/1994. Therefore to the Promoting Committee that the Guarantor Board, with its ruling, did not take into account in any way the will expressly declared by the legislator in 2013. Well, what to do? Despite what was decided by the Great and General Council in 2013, with the sentence of the Guarantor College last Thursday it will therefore no longer be possible to request a popular initiative referendum if the constitutional law is approved with a confirmation of over thirty-nine councilors. And therefore it is enough to put everything in a constitutional law, even what should instead be contained, according to the Declaration of Rights, in a qualified law and that’s it! Thus in this legislature an anomalous majority in terms of consistency and can change all the organs, bodies and powers of the state at will, without them having any other say in the matter, whether it is opposition or citizens. For our country, 23 December 2021 was another dark day, direct democracy, in particular the referendum one, received a ferocious blow, in contempt “of popular sovereignty, on which, in the spirit of the Arengo, freedom itself is based Republican of San Marino ”, as the Guarantor College wrote in 2006.