Society carefully watching top court process

The Constitutional Court announced on Tuesday morning that it had accepted a petition filed by the main opposition Republican People's Party (CHP) against the government's referendum package passed in May. The court's first session on the package will be held on July 5.

The court said it would review the appeal on procedural grounds. The court's decision on the package, which includes articles that would reform the judiciary, is crucial for Turkey. Liberal jurists in the country say a ruling from the high court that cancels the public vote on the referendum, scheduled for Sept. 12, would severely damage Turkey's process of democratization. The high court's announcement that the review will only be made on procedural grounds is important, and Ertekin says it is a legal guarantee given to the nation. He recalled that on June 5, 2008, the Constitutional Court annulled amendments to Articles 10 and 42 of the Constitution that lifted the ban on headscarves at universities.

The court determined that the amendments, passed in Parliament with the support of 411 deputies, indirectly violated the first three articles of the Constitution -- which are unchangeable and to which amendment cannot be proposed -- and therefore annulled them. Ertekin said: “In the past the Constitutional Court has surpassed procedural examinations and has given reviews on the content of changes. A promise has been made. A guarantee has been given that only a procedural examination will be done. However, the Constitutional Court annulled a previous law, known as the headscarf law, on substance under the guise of a procedural examination. The people should now watch the court to see whether it will indeed carry out a procedural examination. The public should concentrate on this issue. To remain a legal entity, the Constitutional Court should only carry out a procedural examination, and let the political institution function.”

Ertekin noted that as long as the Constitutional Court remains committed to the legal guarantee it has given to the nation and functions within the framework of the Constitution, there would not be any problems but noted that if it oversteps the procedural examination boundaries, this would open the court’s legitimacy to question. He said Democrat Judiciary would be monitoring the court closely.

Parliamentary Constitutional Commission head Burhan Kuzu also made a statement yesterday, reiterating concern that the court might judge the amendment package on its substance under the guise of a procedural review. He said that certain gaps in the 1982 Constitution were responsible for this situation. He emphasized that the court can only investigate whether there have been any procedural violations in the voting rounds on the package. He said an annulment of any one of the package’s articles would be a blatant violation of the Constitution and would open the position of the Constitutional Court to serious debate. He said the court should not even look at the text of the package before a public vote is held on it. The referendum on the package is scheduled for Sept. 12. He said he hoped for a “decent decision,” despite the court’s poor track record in similar past incidents.

He also recalled that during the 2007 presidential election, the court canceled the results of a presidential vote in Parliament based on the legal opinion of former Supreme Court of Appeals Chief Prosecutor Sabih Kanadoğlu, who said at least 367 deputies must be present in Parliament during presidential elections. Kuzu said that annulment seriously shook the public’s confidence in the court.

A collective of civil society groups calling themselves the Human Rights Joint Platform also released a statement yesterday reacting to the package review at the high court. A spokesperson for the group, Feray Salman, said if the Constitutional Court undertakes a content-based examination of the package, this would be tantamount to usurping the “will of Parliament.”

Meanwhile, the Constitutional Court yesterday completed its initial review on a new bill that, if enacted, will establish a Public Safety Undersecretariat. The CHP had appealed the bill earlier, calling for a stay of execution. The Constitutional Court announced that the review would be based on substance. The bill, one of the first pieces of legislation to come as part of the Justice and Development Party’s (AK Party) democratic initiative package, stipulates the establishment of an undersecretariat under the jurisdiction of the Interior Ministry that will be responsible for public safety.