Introduction of a state of emergency: a consensus in the Seimas would also have negative consequences

“What we will really pay attention to again during the New Year period is the gathering of people in public places that are adapted for rest and recreation: parks, beaches,” said R. Požėla.

Meanwhile, there is no rumor among politicians that a state of emergency may be necessary to control the spread of the coronavirus in the country and protect the health system.

Although political scientists point out that votes in the Seimas would suffice to introduce this situation, jurists continue to believe that, in the first place, the state of emergency can only be imposed for the reasons provided for in the Constitution, which are lacking in the current situation.

Would the votes be enough?

The Law on the state of emergency of the Republic of Lithuania establishes that “the decision to establish a state of emergency in the whole territory of the state or in a part of it will be taken by the Seimas if the constitutional order or the seriousness of the society threatens to the state. In urgent cases between sessions of the Seimas, the President of the Republic has the right to make such a decision, at the same time calling an extraordinary session of the Seimas to discuss this issue. The Seimas will approve or revoke the decision of the President of the Republic ”. It is also stated that “By approving the decision of the President of the Republic to establish a state of emergency, the Seimas may modify its provisions by reducing or increasing: 1) the territory in which the state of emergency is introduced; 2) the duration of the emergency; 3) established restrictions on constitutional rights and freedoms and the scope of emergency measures that can be applied ”.

How Delphi explained Agnė Širinskienė, parliamentarian, lawyer, member of the Law and Order Committee of the Seimas, the resolution on the state of emergency in the Seimas is approved by a simple majority of the number of members of the Seimas present at the session. It is not compulsory for at least 71 parliamentarians to be present.

If there was still a vote on the state of emergency in the Seimas, according to the political scientist, Professor Lauras Bielinis of Vytautas Magnus University (VMU), the debate in parliament would take place, but there would be enough votes and we would have to confirm the status emergency in the Seimas.

“There can be no fundamental disagreement between the position and the opposition at this time. There may be a discussion about the details, but in principle everyone more or less understands that the situation is deteriorating and that cardinal action is needed,” he said.

Mažvydas Jastramskis, associate professor and political scientist at Vilnius University, Institute of International Relations and Political Science (VU TSPMI), took a similar position. According to him, the introduction of the state of emergency should be approved when voting when a simple majority is required.

“But since it is not only about the Seimas, it should be an agreement between the ruling majority and the president. Coordination between the Presidency and the ruling majority should be sought,” emphasized M. Jastramskis.

Isn’t it necessary and the consequences would be serious?

The professor at the University Mykolas Romeris, political scientist Rima Urbonaitė, emphasized that at this moment we must ask ourselves if we really need to introduce a state of emergency. According to her, we are hearing more speculation and deliberation so far, but we do not hear any serious arguments about why an emergency is needed and why the powers available to the government are insufficient.

“We are thinking very hypothetically and today it is even difficult to imagine how unmanageable the situation must be to make such decisions. Whether a majority is sufficient will largely depend on what the situation is. If the situation were truly unmanageable and people started threatening themselves, a consensus could certainly emerge in the Seimas. This is an extreme measure that has some consequences. The state of emergency is extraordinary with all the consequences that derive from it, ”said R. Urbonaitė.

Thinking about the consequences, the state of emergency, as M. Jastramskis, associate professor at VU TSPMI, points out, can provoke some temptations to the government. Therefore, a state of emergency should be declared only in a true state of emergency, so that in the future there is no temptation to abuse the powers of the state towards the individual.

“This is an issue not only related to the state of emergency, but also to the strict quarantines in several European countries. It is about the relationship between state power and human rights. The introduction of a state of emergency, strict quarantine, means a partial restriction of political and civil rights. “We will go back to doing it normally, or maybe some politicians want to continue with those things and next time we won’t make it easier,” Jastramskis said.

Meanwhile, Vytautas University professor Magnus L. Bielinis noted that the introduction of a state of emergency would complicate the economy. According to the political scientist, this would be a kind of stress for economic sectors, such as hotels.

There is no constitutional basis

Constitutional law expert Professor Vytautas Sinkevičius emphasized that it is possible to talk about the introduction of a state of emergency only if there is a constitutional basis for it. And now it does not exist in Lithuania.

Article 144 of the Constitution defines that “if there is a threat to the constitutional order or the seriousness of society in the State, the Seimas may establish a state of emergency throughout the territory of the State or in a part of it.”

“There are only two reasons and those reasons do not exist in Lithuania now. There is no threat to the constitutional order: the Seimas, the Government, the President are working. Is there a serious threat to society? It will not go. No one breaks. windows, no disturbances, no reason to impose a state of emergency.

We often hear about the curfew, but it is foreseen in the law of the state of emergency and there is no constitutional basis for its implementation ”, explained the professor.

“The state of emergency is a special case. Its introduction can restrict very important rights, so the creators of the Constitution did not foresee that, in the event of a similar epidemic, fundamental rights would be restricted. We have to be calm, obey the Government requirements, which have been adopted based on the law, and there is no need to talk about the state of emergency yet, ”he continued.