We Will Meet at the Constitutional Court: Naira Zohrabyan

We will meet at the Constitutional Court: This was stated by National Assembly member Naira Zohrabyan on her Facebook page. She specifically noted:

“Conclusion on the legality of the initiative of the ‘Civil Contract’ faction regarding the termination of the powers of the chairman of the Standing Committee of the National Assembly.

The grounds for the termination of the powers of the chairman of the Standing Committee of the National Assembly are not stipulated by law, as it follows from the discretionary authority of the parliamentary faction entitled to nominate the chairman of that standing committee. In other words, if the grounds for termination of powers are exhaustive, then in the case of a termination of powers, the subject with the right to nominate a candidate has the discretion. That is, the faction itself decides the effectiveness of its policy development and implementation.

In this context, it would be at least contrary to the internal logic of the Constitution if such unlimited discretion were also reserved for the other factions, including the stable majority faction, as this would be regarded as a legalized trick to exert pressure on opposition factions.

Unfortunately, the majority faction currently operates on this obviously reprehensible and flawed postulate, believing that this indefinite authority is specifically reserved for them.

This comment derives from the provisions enshrined in both Article 106, part 2 of the Constitution, and Article 8, part 1, point 5, and Article 138, part 2 of the Constitutional Law on the Rules of Procedure of the National Assembly.

Except for the parliamentary faction entitled to nominate the chairman of the standing committee, no other faction is simply authorized to submit a draft decision to the National Assembly regarding the termination of the powers of that standing committee chairman.

The confusion may arise from the legal regulation that Article 150, part 2 of the Constitutional Law on the Rules of Procedure of the National Assembly does not specify which faction this authority belongs to. However, it must be guided not by the notion that in the absence of specificity, any faction could be perceived as such, but that it could exclusively be the faction whose election aligns with the objective of the legislator, based on the principles set out in Article 41 of the Law of the Republic of Armenia on Normative Legal Acts: ‘The norm of a normative legal act is interpreted taking into account the purpose of the body that adopted it, based on the literal meaning of the words and expressions contained therein, the context of the regulation of the entire article, chapter, and section (emphasis added), the provisions of the normative legal act whose implementation is based on that act, the principles established by that normative legal act, and if such principles are not established, the principles of the branch of law regulating the relevant legal relationship.’

It should be noted that the norm enshrined in Article 150, part 2 of the Constitutional Law on the Rules of Procedure of the National Assembly, when considered in regulatory context, especially the unique term of ‘faction’, will clearly demonstrate that it specifically refers to the parliamentary faction entitled to nominate the chairman of that standing committee: ‘The faction has the right to present a draft decision to the National Assembly on the termination of the powers of the chairman of the standing committee (emphasis added).’ Moreover, in the Constitutional Law on the Rules of Procedure of the National Assembly, in all cases when a general possible behavior, right, or authority is enshrined, the plural term ‘factions’ has been used, such as in Article 7, part 11, point 7 of Article 40, part 3, point 4, and other articles.

2. The ‘Civil Contract’ faction has once again erroneously assumed that the draft presented by them is legal, as the chairman of the standing committee allegedly violated ethical rules. However, the elementary rule that the authority to present a conclusion regarding the violation of ethical rules is reserved not for any faction, but solely for the temporary committee created for parliamentary ethics matters, has been overlooked.

Thus, even if we were to conditionally accept that the alleged violation of ethical rules by the chairman of the standing committee was already a sufficient basis for presenting an initiative to terminate his powers, it would be necessary, first of all, to have the appropriate conclusion from the competent body regarding this fact in the prescribed manner.

3. The submission of a draft decision regarding the termination of the powers of the chairman of the standing committee by the faction with the corresponding authority, and not the immediate decision on the termination of powers, arises from the norms of Article 106, part 2 of the Constitution and is conditioned by the guaranteed status of a deputy in the bodies of the National Assembly. In other words, even the faction that has nominated the candidate cannot directly resolve the deputy's status in those bodies, which further indicates that any interference from any other faction in this context is not lawful.

Therefore, the alleged violations of ethical rules by a deputy can only be the subject of discussion in the temporary committee created for parliamentary ethics matters.

P.S. I thank the best lawyers of Armenia, constitutional experts, for their readiness to present the conclusion and the issue in the Constitutional Court.