Senator Canov: Blackest day in Senate history

There was very strong lobbying for the Senate not to deal with the bill at all (and thus to pass it as it was passed in the Chamber of Deputies) because its supporters feared that (if the amendments were successful) the Chamber of Deputies would not have to to approve neither the Senate return nor his original own proposal.

In general, I am always opposed to the Senate not dealing with a bill. That is why the Senate was created, and its purpose, on the contrary, lies in the fact that it deals with laws. All the more so for a bill that moves society. However, the possibility of “non-dealing” is explicitly stated in the Constitution and the rules of procedure, and I have already experienced “non-dealing” several times in the less than 8 years that I have been in the Senate. “Non-dealing”, however, has a safeguard to prevent this institute from being misused against the will of even a small minority, when one senatorial club or 10 senators can veto a “non-dealing” proposal.

The evening before the plenary session, the senatorial club KDU-ČSL and independents announced that it would veto a possible proposal to “not deal with”.

Sometime during the night, an incredible plan was created to remove this item from the agenda and thereby achieve its approval by passing the so-called futile deadline (30 days from delivery to the Senate). I found it, and still do, absolutely scandalous. Not only will the draft law not be discussed at all in the Senate plenary in this way, but first and foremost, it bypasses the possibility of a veto (1 senatorial club or 10 senators) as a legal safeguard against the abuse of the institute of “non-dealing”. In the entire 28-year history of the Senate, nothing like this has ever happened, and no one has ever attempted anything like this.

To the members of my senatorial caucus, the chairman of the caucus announced a plan to remove the item from the agenda of the plenary session, which began on April 17 at 10:00 a.m., 8:22 a.m.

And indeed, during the discussion of the draft program in the plenary session, the chairman of the senatorial club ODS and TOP 09 spoke and proposed to remove the item from the plenary session. I spoke out against it immediately, video HERE.

Transcript: “Dear Mr. Chairman and Chairman at the same time, colleagues, colleagues. Regarding the proposal to eliminate Senate Press No. 234, an amendment to the Civil Code, known by the acronym Marriage for All, I am announcing that I request that the elimination of this item be voted on separately. First of all. And secondly, I will not allow myself to say the following. We all know very well that in the corridors of the Senate he discussed a proposal not to deal with this law. Because there was a real danger that the Senate club KDU-ČSL, or a group of at least ten senators, would veto this proposal not to deal with this law, this proposal was created to remove this bud from the program completely. I don’t know for sure, one of the historians can confirm it for me, but I think that this is the very first time in the history of the Senate, in the 28 years of its existence, that it is proposed to remove an item from the agenda with the aim of passing a useless deadline. And the Senate did not deal with this point at all. I consider it an extraordinary scandal. So, I repeat once again, I suggest that the Senate deal with the vote separately by eliminating this point. And I appeal to all of you not to degrade ourselves and the Senate by purposefully taking this item off the agenda, never to deal with it again. Thank you for your attention.”

Unfortunately, I did not succeed in my effort, during the vote to eliminate the point, 47 senators voted for it, 21 were against it (including me), 9 abstained and 4 did not vote at all. The voting record can be found here. here. However, in my eyes, this does not change the scandalous nature of this decision. I repeat and emphasize again: This bypassed the announced veto, which by law excludes “non-discussion” and, on the contrary, guarantees a discussion if at least a small minority of 1 senatorial club or 10 senators requests it. And so far, no one has even attempted anything so scandalous in the 28-year history of the Senate.

In this sense, I also expressed my opinion on Czech Television at noon. In a montage where colleagues also express themselves in the video HERE.

During my subsequent study of the Constitution, I have come to the conclusion that I am not at all sure whether the removal of the bill from the agenda, with the aim of passing a futile deadline, was not unconstitutional. The Constitution, in Article 46, paragraph 1, clearly stipulates the obligation of the Senate to discuss the bill within 30 days. Paragraph 3 admits that the Senate will not express itself within this period, but I understand this to mean that it will not approve anything (the Senate expresses itself through resolutions), i.e. that a majority will not be found and thus the Senate will not pass a resolution in any of the options listed in paragraph 2. It will neither approve nor reject nor return to the Chamber of Deputies with amendments nor express a will not to deal with the law. Not that the draft law will not include the plenary session at all or even exclude it from the draft program.

“Constitution Art. 46 (1) The Senate shall discuss the bill and pass a resolution on it within thirty days of its referral. (2) By its resolution, the Senate approves or rejects the draft law or returns it to the Chamber of Deputies with amendments, or expresses the will not to deal with it. (3) If the Senate does not express itself within the time limit referred to in paragraph 1, the bill shall be deemed to have been adopted.”

I expressed myself in this sense in the early evening broadcast of Czech Television in an interview broadcast live. Video HERE.

For me personally, it was the blackest day in the history of the Senate that I have ever experienced. The Senate degraded and discredited itself.

—–

Supplement:

Below I am reprinting the statement of lawyer Pavel Hasenkopf regarding this article of mine on my FB:

You are absolutely correct, including understanding Article 46 as an order to discuss the law (not dealing with it is lex specialis). And the 30-day period is in order, in case it didn’t have time, forgot or wanted to prevent the adoption of a law by not discussing it – without it, the Senate could block any law at any time simply by putting it on ice, which is exactly what the founders did not want. That period can therefore be allowed to pass passively, but not in such a way that I actively remove something from the program, at that moment you are running head-on against Article 46/1.

I will give an example from construction law. According to § 96b of the old Building Act, the regional planning authority had the obligation to issue a binding opinion on a request for any project in the territory, whether or not it is in accordance with the regional plan, and had 30 days to do so – if it failed to do so, it was considered that it agreed . A number of offices immediately began to abuse this to save themselves work, and let trivial things lie for 30 days … but the 30-day period in the law was not to save the work of officials, but to protect applicants from the inaction of the office. And the 30-day deadline for the Senate to vote on a bill has exactly the same logic … it’s not there to save the work of the Senate, but to protect the House from inaction by the Senate.

Add PL to your favorite feeds on Google News. Thank you