So what, actually, claims to Yanukovych?
More than once, it was necessary to write that any violations of the Constitution, whatever the reason, whatever the sauce was served, will eventually come out sideways both for Ukraine as a whole and directly for those who act contrary to the Basic Law.2000 also wrote a lot on this topic during the “orange” coup-2004, and when unconstitutional re-elections of BP 2007 were appointed, and in 2010, when the political reform was audited illegally and 1996 Constitution was returned (see “2000 "," White-blue "revolution", "Yanukovych - an illegitimate president?", "Cleanliness of the procedure or" the law that dyshlo ... ").
Any anti-constitutional action breeds lawlessness, creates precedents, lays the ground for relapses: if these (today's) violators can do it, then why can't others?
Today they violated “from good intentions”, tomorrow - “because they really need to” ... There is no doubt: the next day someone will break, too - not these (violate today), so others who take an example from them. In the circumstances of more than free treatment of the Basic Law, based on the principle of political expediency, no one will say - when, at what time, what date will Ukraine begin to live in strict accordance with the Constitution and laws? Never! Tomorrow there will again be a “good reason” to trample the Basic Law.
21 February President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych signed with the three opposition leaders (Yatsenyuk, Klitschko and Tyagnibok) “Citing about Ukraine’s crisis”. The agreement was also signed by European mediators - the guarantors of its execution: the foreign ministers of Germany, Poland and France.
In the first paragraph, the document stipulated: “Proceedings of 48 for each year after the registration of the government should be received, the special law has been signed, and the special law of the Constitution of Ukraine of 2004 should be adopted, submitted to the deadline, submitted to the curriculum of the Constitution of Ukraine XNUMX, with the adoption of a new law, submitted to the curriculum
There were other points, for example: “Ownership of the situation is the first place on the nature of life and nature… at home, children, and nature and nature ...
By and large, Yanukovych had reason to immediately blame the opposition for not implementing the agreement. For the protesters not only did not stop the military actions, the storming of administrative buildings, but on Independence it was stated in plain text that no one is going to execute what was written down, that the president should leave immediately (otherwise - “go over to an armed offensive”), and the oppositionists (in In particular, Klitschko) also apologized to those who gathered for this agreement: they blundered, they say ...
That is, by the evening of February 21 a document - signed with European mediation - was turned by Maidan and its leaders into worthless paper. (This, incidentally, also concerns the question - who previously violated the agreements reached during the negotiations between the government and the opposition?)
February 21 visually testified which side was completely incapable of negotiating (and this is when the senior officials from EU countries initialed the agreements - what to say about situations when negotiated without European intermediaries!).
Nevertheless, in the evening of February 21 in the Verkhovna Rada vote for that very “special law” on the renewal of the Constitution of 2004. Arseniy Yatsenyuk, speaking before him from the rostrum of BP, emphasized that “the current president was elected by the Constitution of 2004 of the year, but the COP illegally canceled certain provisions of the Ukrainian Constitution ", and that as a result of the adoption of the law, the Verkhovna Rada" will receive authority to appoint the government, all members of the Cabinet of Ministers, and influence law enforcement, judicial and other branches of government. "
Reasonable. The president was "elected according to the Constitution of 2004 of the Year" - he was returned to the framework of the powers delegated to him by the voters in the elections of 2010. But the deputies of the current BP elected at the parliamentary elections of 2012 already under the conditions of the Constitution of 1996. The voters indicated by Yatsenyuk “the authority to appoint the government, all Cabinet members, influence on law enforcement, judicial and other branches of government” did not delegate them!
Why is it that such principled democrats - Yatsenyuk and his comrades - did not demand to declare the re-election of the Verkhovna Rada, according to the Constitution of 2004? After which the deputies, having received a mandate from the people to exercise broader powers, would start the very “appointment of the government, all members of the Cabinet of Ministers, influence on law enforcement, judicial and other branches of government”.
But no - the law stated that the current Verkhovna Rada was working until October 2017. There were no early elections for parliament.
When the president takes over powers that are not delegated to him by the people, this is bad, this is reason enough to protest, storm administrative buildings, etc., etc. When the Verkhovna Rada does the same, no one rolls their eyes, wringing his hands, does not go into hysterics, “how can it be without a popular mandate ?!”, this is “normal”.
The Maidan, by the way, took such an anti-democratic (based on the logic of the same Euromaidanovtsy) act with full approval.
Okay. The opposition has not fulfilled its obligations to renounce the use of force, to release captured administrative buildings. Adopted a "special law", aimed at returning the Constitution of 2004. But then the law must be signed by the president! Only then will the law become law!
According to the terms of “Ugodi about the timeout crisis in Ukraine”, Viktor Yanukovych had 48 hours on it, that is, until February evening 23. And according to the Constitution - even more: “The President of Ukraine, within fifteen days after receiving the law, signs it, accepting it for execution, and officially promulgates it or returns the law with its motivated and formulated proposals to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine for reconsideration. If the President of Ukraine did not return the law for a repeated consideration within the prescribed time, the law is considered approved by the President of Ukraine and can be signed and officially announced ”(part 2 Art. 94 was in effect at that time the Constitution 1996 g). 15 days!
Viktor Yanukovych had the full constitutional right to contemplate 15 days. Yes, it would be a violation of the “Restructuring crisis in Ukraine” (and didn’t the opposition themselves violate this agreement?), But it would be consistent with the Constitution.
However, the opposition did not wait for 15 days or 48 hours. The 24 hours did not pass, as BP, in which representatives of the opposition factions were already leading (the outside peace was supported by “peaceful protesters” - with bats and machine guns), put into effect the 2004 Constitution without the signature of the president, by a decree.
As Yatsenyuk explained, such a decision is necessary “due to the fact that the President of Ukraine did not fulfill the responsibility assumed in the agreement and did not sign the law on the renewal of the Constitution of 2004 g”.
Well, first of all, at that time the deadline during which Yanukovych must (according to “Requirements for crisis in Ukraine”) would not be released was to sign this law. And secondly, and this is most important, the legal field of the state is not determined by political documents like “Lands about the crisis in Ukraine” (violated, by the way, by the opposition members themselves), but primarily by the Constitution. And according to the Constitution. law without the signature of the president - not the law!
The question is: how does BP’s 22 February 2014 act better than the actions of the Constitutional Court in 2010? In terms of respect for the Basic Law - nothing! The COP did not have the right to rewrite the Basic Law by its decision (from the sample of 2004 to the editors of 1996). But the Verkhovna Rada is not authorized to rewrite the Constitution (in the reverse order, from the sample of 1996 to the version of 2004) by its resolution. In both cases, going beyond the scope of authority and gross violation of the procedure for amending the Constitution.
Before that, the Verkhovna Rada “distinguished” in the adoption of another revolutionary document in all respects - the Decree on the self-elimination of the President of Ukraine from the exercise of constitutional powers. Here is its full text:
“Considering that President Viktor Yanukovych of Ukraine withdrew from the exercise of constitutional powers, which poses a threat to state controllability, territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine, massive violation of citizens' rights and freedoms, based on the circumstances of extreme necessity, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, deciding:
1. Establish that the President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych, in an unconstitutional manner, withdrew from the exercise of constitutional powers and does not fulfill his duties.
2. In accordance with paragraph 7 h. 1 Art. 85 Constitution of Ukraine to appoint special elections for the President of Ukraine on 25 May 2014.
3. The decree comes into force from the moment of its adoption. ”
To say that this is nonsense - to say nothing.
How, it turns out, simply to remove the President of Ukraine - to declare him “self-withdrawing”. By the way, what is this - “self-elimination” of the president? Who determines whether he “removed himself” from exercising constitutional powers or not? What procedure does it take and where is it written out? Where is such a concept defined at all - “self-removal of the president from exercising constitutional powers”? Nowhere!
According to Part 5 Art. 103 of the Constitution “in the event of an early termination of the powers of the President of Ukraine, the elections of the President of Ukraine are held during the ninety days from the day of the termination of powers”.
That is, extraordinary presidential elections can be appointed only in the case of early termination of his powers.
But the Constitution does not have such a rule - the removal of the president from power or the appointment of extraordinary presidential elections in the form of his (current president) "self-withdrawal."
CH 2 Art. The 108 Constitution (and it sounds the same in the Basic Law of both 1996 and 2004) contains an exhaustive list of reasons why the presidential powers are terminated early: “in case of: 1) resignation; 2) the inability to exercise their powers for health reasons; 3) impeachment from office; 4) of death. "
Does the Constitution "withdrawn from the exercise of constitutional powers"? The answer is obvious: no.
In other words, the Verkhovna Rada unconstitutional suspended the president and called an unconstitutional presidential election on 25 in May 2014.
The legitimacy of such a president can be questioned by anyone, at any time, including the current closest associates.
I will remind a case from recent stories. In 2007, Yulia Tymoshenko incited Viktor Yushchenko to the unconstitutional dispersal of parliament and the appointment of special elections to BP. And in 2008, she was already going to remove Yushchenko himself from power under the impeachment procedure, imputing the “overclocking” decrees he was accused of.
The list of Yushchenko’s crimes, prepared by BYU lawyers, indicated his acts on the early termination of the authority of the Verkhovna Rada of the 5th convocation: “The issuance of such acts was unconditional evidence of Yushchenko’s intention to unconsciously terminate the highest representative body, which led to grave consequences in the economic, political and social spheres, since from April to September 2007, the activities of both the Rada and the people's deputies were terminated. ”
And Yushchenko’s actions themselves, which allowed the BYuT to implement the plan for dissolving the parliament of the fifth convocation, according to the authors of the submission, contained signs of a crime under Art. 344 of the Criminal Code (“unlawful influence on people's deputies in order to prevent a person from fulfilling his official duties using his official position”) (see Kommersant Ukraine, No. XXUMX (234), 819).
If tomorrow the Democrats will quarrel (and this has always happened to them, as soon as it came to the section of the power seats), they will begin to remember who and how they violated today.
By the way, the presidential elections are scheduled for May 25 - this is only the first round. If you need a second one (and most likely it will be so), this is already June 8. Add 10 days to set aside results. But the powers of the current CEC end on June 1. Summing up the elections and declaring the name of the president will be an illegitimate CEC? .. Well, yes, in the light of the "legitimacy" of the elections themselves, this will not be such a big problem.
The Verkhovna Rada, "democratized" by Maidan, flashed with other "legislative" arts. For example, the new speaker of the BP was authorized to "coordinate the work of the government." Even unconstitutionally returned, the Basic Law of 2004 does not give the head of BP such authority. From the constitutional point of view, this is the usurpation of power. For those interested, I suggest that you re-read the verdict of the Constitutional Court of 5 in October 2005 (“To the right about possession of the people”): “The guarantor is not allowed to usurpate state power, the Zokremia ... laid down, with the help of an usurping state power, the zokremia ... Zobov'yazanі dіyat lishy on p_dstavі, in the interwalks again and in sposіb, just to the Constitution and the laws of Ukraine (part of a friend of 19) ”...
However, who is interested in it now. Moreover, the opposition will not "bother" with such "trifles". Well, this is not the autocrat Yanukovych vested unconstitutional powers, and the democrat Turchinov.
The constitution of 2004 does not give the parliament the right to appoint the leadership of the Security Service of Ukraine and the Ministry of Defense even in the form of some “control agents”. It does not matter: “the president has withdrawn himself from his duties, therefore, on behalf of the parliament, we appoint Valentina Nalyvaichenko to be the ombudsman for the control of the SBU,” announced A. Turchinov on February 22. At the time of passing “to the side of the people”, V. Zaman was sent “authorized by the VR” to the Ministry of Defense, and the “freedom fighter” O. Mokhnitsky was sent to the GPU.
They returned the mandates to a number of former deputies by a resolution of the Verkhovna Rada, bypassing the “unnecessary” judicial procedures: Sergey Vlasenko, Pavel Baloga and Alexander Dombrovsky. I wonder where now to put the deputies who came to their place? Say, according to the CEC decision from 18 in March 2013, Roman Stadniychuk came to replace S. Vlasenko. Took the deputy oath. How to “ask” him now from the Rada and by what procedure? She, by the way, for such cases is simply absent. Will there be more deputies in the Verkhovna Rada than stipulated by the Constitution? In the present circumstances it is quite possible.
By the way, at the same time, along with Sergey Vlasenko, Andrei Verevsky was deprived of his deputy’s mandate, and for the same reason - because of his second job. But no one returned to Verevsky's mandate. Maybe because he was a member of the Party of Regions faction, to which the "triumph of justice" does not apply?
And, of course, it is impossible not to say about the “procedure” of the release of Yulia Tymoshenko. February 21 seems to have tried to go the legal way. A law was passed to amend the articles of the Criminal Code for which the ex-premier was convicted. Further, the law had to be signed by the president. The next step is a court decision. And only then - to freedom. February 21 in the evening and Timoshenko’s defender Sergey Vlasenko thought so, having commented on the law “on decriminalization”: “Now Yulia Tymoshenko should be released by a court decision”.
But why wait for a court decision? Can it be easier - by decree of BP! And February 22 supporters of Yulia Vladimirovna decided not to complicate matters - they supported the Verkhovna Rada's decree “On the fulfillment of Ukraine’s international obligations regarding the release of Yulia Tymoshenko”.
Even 21 February, the opposition did not know that there is, it turns out, some "international obligations of Ukraine regarding the liberation of Yulia Tymoshenko." And in the night from 21 to 22, it dawned.
Needless to say, there was no “international obligations of Ukraine” about the release of Tymoshenko, nor any legal basis for the aforesaid decree of the Supreme Court ...
In the autumn of 2010, when the “regionals” repeated the unconstitutional actions of Yushchenko, which they themselves had previously criticized, I suggested: “Maybe they should apologize to Viktor Andreyevich and hang out the slogan:“ Yushchenko, were you right! ”?” (“White-blue " revolution"). Isn't it time for the current legislators to start apologizing to Viktor Yanukovych and members of his team right now? After all, only in a few days they had fooled so much on the part of the violation of the norms of the Constitution that they could surpass their predecessors.
And why is the Maidan silent, why is it not opposing new usurpers?
Information