After two days of heated debates, Parliament passed on Friday evening draft of amendments to the law on Constitutional Court with its second hearing, envisaging, among other issues, increasing the quorum required for the Court to decide cases.

The bill, which the opponents say will hinder the efficient functioning of the Constitutional Court, was passed with 83 votes, 7 more than required minimum of 76.

The bill, proposed by the ruling GDDG party, has met a fierce opposition from the UNM parliamentary minority group, which accused the governing party of an attempt to take control over the Constitutional Court.

MPs from the Republican Party, which formally remains within the GD parliamentary majority group, as well as lawmakers from the Free Democrats opposition party were also against. New Political Center-Girchi, which voted for the bill during the first reading, withdraw support just before the second reading vote, citing its opposition to the proposal to increase the number of judges needed for a ruling.

The proposed rule to impose a two-thirds majority, instead of a simple majority, required for the 9-member Court to decide cases, has also been criticized by some watchdog groups. Transparency International Georgia said in a statement on May 13 that the proposal is “detrimental to the interests of the constitutional justice and complicates protection of constitutional rights.”

Parliament Speaker, Davit Usupashvili of the Republican Party, who also opposes the bill, said that President Giorgi Margvelashvili indicated about intention to veto the draft amendments if approved with its third and final reading. At least 76 votes are needed to override a presidential veto.
 
Along with higher quorum for taking decision, the bill also proposes to increase number of judges required to be present when the Constitutional Court sits as a full bench when discussing a case.

According to the existing legislation, when adjudicating a case in full bench, the 9-member Constitutional Court is eligible to proceed if at least 6 judges are present.

The bill envisages increasing this number to 7 judges.

The existing legislation requires support of simple majority of judges for taking a decision – that is 4 judges in case minimum required 6 judges are present, and 5 judges if all nine are present.

Under the proposed new rule decisions should be taken by at least 6 judges – no matter whether minimum required 7 judges will be present or all nine of them.

In another controversial proposal, decisions on suspending a disputed legislative clause as an interim measure pending final verdict should be taken by full bench; currently such interim decision can be taken by a panel of four judges. Opponents say the proposed new rule will overload the Court and complicate its functioning.

Although much criticized initial draft has been heavily amended to address concerns of civil society groups and other opponents, co-sponsor of the bill GDDG MP Eka Beselia, chairperson of the human rights parliamentary committee, refused to compromise on the issue of quorum.

It was among the most contentious issue during the two-day tense debates in the Parliament at times growing into some opposition UNM lawmakers banging their fists on desks in protest.

They slammed the bill as a “punitive measure” against the Constitutional Court for taking number of decisions over the past eight months, which angered the government, among them on the complaint filed by ex-mayor of Tbilisi Gigi Ugulava; Rustavi 2 TV case; financial supervisory agency, and most recently on surveillance regulations.

Opposition MPs, including those from the Free Democrats party, claim that by increasing quorum, the government wants to block Constitutional Court’s decisions with the help of few judges, who might be loyal towards the governing party.

Currently all but one of the members of the Constitutional Court, were appointed when the UNM party was in government. Only one member, Merab Turava, was elected as Constitutional Court judge by the sitting Parliament.

10-year term of four judges, among them of the Constitutional Court Chairman Giorgi Papuashvili, will expire in late September. Two of them should be replaced by new judges appointed by President Giorgi Margvelashvili; one has to be appointed by the Parliament and the fourth one by the Supreme Court.

MP Tamar Kordzaia of the Republican Party said that some of the controversial clauses of the bill, including those related to high quorum, “increase the risk of political manipulations and for that reason the bill is unacceptable for us.”

MP Shalva Shavgulidze of the Free Democrats said that “the only purpose of this bill is to gain control over the Constitutional Court by the governing party.”

“As it has no majority members of the court, [the GDDG] came up with such a proposal, which would allow just few members to block decisions of the court,” he said.

Along with disputed legislative clauses and laws, the Constitutional Court also has the authority to adjudicate disputes related to election and referendum results.

In the view of upcoming parliamentary elections planned for October 8, this issue was also raised, although briefly, during the debates.

UNM MP Irma Nadirashvili told GDDG lawmakers: “You try to adopt this bill at any cost, because this is vitally important for you. You think that you won’t be able to rig election results without this law.”

GDDG MP Beselia responded that these remarks by MP Nadirashvili was exposing UNM’s possible intention to use its loyal judges in the Constitutional Court to try annul election results if unfavorable for the opposition party. “That’s a very dangerous scenario,” she added. 

The ruling GDDG party decided to go ahead with adoption of the bill without sending it for review to the Venice Commission, which is the Council of Europe’s advisory body for legal and constitutional affairs.

Co-sponsor of the bill, MP Beselia, apparently pledged to send the amendments to the Venice Commission before adoption, when she met co-rapporteurs from the Parliamentary Assembly of Council of Europe (PACE), who visited Georgia earlier this month.

After the visit PACE co-rapporteurs Boriss Cilevičs and Kerstin Lundgren said in a joint statement that they welcome the intention of the chairperson of the human rights parliamentary committee to send the proposed amendments to the Venice Commission for opinion, “before they are discussed in second reading in the parliament.”

“This should allay any fears that, when adopted, these amendments would inadvertently hinder the efficient functioning of the Constitutional Court. The important role of the Constitutional Court as an independent and impartial arbiter should be ensured. By being asked for an opinion in the next couple of days, the Venice Commission would be able to adopt its opinion at its June plenary session, which in turn would allow the parliament to take the recommendations of the Venice Commission into account when adopting the amendments in final reading before the end of this parliamentary session,” the two co-rapporteurs said in the statement released on May 10.

But the bill was put for second hearing in the Parliament this week, causing opposition’s protest, which was calling on the ruling party to postpone hearing and at first send the bill to the Venice Commission. MP Beselia and other lawmakers from the GDDG party said on May 13, that the bill will be sent to the Venice Commission only after it is adopted.

In an attempt to finalize adoption of the bill with its third and final reading as soon as possible, the GDDG lawmakers proposed late on Friday evening to hold a parliamentary session on Saturday – it is unusual for the Georgian legislative body to convene a session over weekend.