[ad_1]
Responding to such fears of the head of parliament, one of the creators of the Constitution, Professor Vytautas Sinkevičius of Mykolas Romeris University (MRU) stresses that there is no reason to doubt that the isolation procedure for parliamentarians is in line with the provisions of the Constitution. The professor points out that the members of the Seimas are subject to the same restrictions as the entire population of the country, so parliamentarians must take responsibility and not pose a threat to those around them. V. Sinkevičius also stresses that the Seimas, which has not legalized telework for half a year, has acted irresponsibly and is trying to solve the current situation by misinterpreting the Constitution.
The isolation procedure applied to the members of the Seimas is not in conflict with the Constitution.
“There is no reason to doubt whether this is in accordance with the Constitution or is contrary to it. It is not unconstitutional, since the requirements established in the law, as well as in the order of the Minister of Health, that people suffering from the infection due to COVID-19 or who have had close contact with a sick person must be isolated, they are binding on all people, regardless of their condition.
Consequently, they are also mandatory for the members of the Seimas ”, V. Sinkevičius told Eltai.
The MRU professor also draws attention to the fact that the members of the Seimas, by taking the oath, promise to observe the Constitution and obey the requirements established by law. According to him, the requirement to isolate is not an end in itself, because, according to V. Sinkevičius, it has a constitutional basis, which aims to ensure another constitutional value, that is, to protect other people from the threat of being infected by the coronavirus.
“There is a constitutional rule: every person who exercises his rights and freedoms cannot violate the rights and freedoms of other people by exercising them. In this case, it is a member of the Seimas who says that his rights are violated, he must remember that he must act responsibly. You have no right to infect other people with a particularly dangerous infectious disease, “he said.
V. Sinkevičius also emphasizes that the Seimas does not have the right to establish the procedure for how long the isolation should last. Therefore, according to him, it is not the parliamentarians but the doctors who should consider why even a person who has received a negative test has to go through a period of mandatory isolation.
“The Seimas does not have the right to determine the procedure, how many days the isolation should be applied, what to do when the test is positive or negative. Those problems need to be addressed by doctors. And only they decide on the basis of scientific knowledge. Therefore, to say that only something was wrongly established by the Minister is a matter of debate, but it is a matter of medical debate, not of political debate, ”he said.
The MRU professor also points out that V. Čmilytė-Nielsen’s statement that the NVSC has no right to instruct the Seimas is unfounded.
“This is by no means an argument, as the NVSC does not give binding instructions to either a lower authority or a higher authority. It simply gives instructions that are mandatory for all people with COVID-19 who are suspected of having or having had close contact with the patient. This is not an instruction, it is a medical requirement and is based on the fact that one particularly dangerous infectious disease cannot be allowed to spread, others cannot be infected, “he emphasized.
V. Sinkevičius points out that the rights of the members of the Seimas enshrined in the Constitution cannot be construed in such a way as to pose a threat to society. According to him, the rights of parliamentarians are established so that a member of the Seimas can exercise his powers as a representative of the nation, but in case of illness he is subject to the same restrictions as all other people.
“The members of the Seimas must understand their responsibility, act responsibly and simply because any faction of the Seimas, majority or minority, lacks votes, we cannot distort and interpret the Constitution. In a way that would be detrimental to society and the health and lives of others, ”he concluded.
Parliamentarians acted irresponsibly by failing to legalize teleworking in time
The MRU professor also emphasizes that it is incorrect to state that members of the Seimas in self-isolation are deprived of the right to participate in the sessions. V. Sinkevičius points out that Seimas himself created such a situation without timely legalizing the possibility of teleworking.
“We are convinced once again that the Seimas did not fulfill its duty when the first wave of COVID-19 emerged. Even then, it was necessary to think about the amendments to the Statute of the Seimas, to calmly prepare such amendments that would be acceptable to both the majority and the minority. And now we would have a situation in which a member of the Seimas could participate in the discussions, and maybe even vote remotely ”, emphasized the professor.
Therefore, according to V. Sinkevičius, the parliament acted irresponsibly by not legalizing telework in time and is trying to solve the current situation by misinterpreting the Constitution.
“No one worked seriously with the amendments to the Statute of the Seimas during that semester, (…) it was not thought that there is no majority or minority interest, or position or opposition, there is a common interest in having amendments to the Statute that allow the Seimas work, but in what special situations ”, he said.
No part of this publication may be reproduced without the written permission of ELTA.
[ad_2]
