[ad_1]
“It rejected, as unfounded, the exception of unconstitutionality formulated by the President of Romania and considered that the Law that modifies and complements Law 272/2004 on the protection and promotion of the rights of the child is constitutional, in relation to the criticisms made”, it reads in the minutes of the CCR.
The law establishes that in schools, with the written consent of the parents or legal representatives of the children, education programs for life, including health education, will be carried out to prevent the contraction of sexually transmitted diseases and the pregnancy of minors.
„Due to the way it was adopted, as well as the normative content, the law derived from the constitutionality control contradicts the provisions of art. 1 par. (3) and para. (5) of the Basic Law, as well as the provisions of art. 61 in conjunction with art. 75 par. (1), para. (4) and para. (5) by reference to art. 73 par. (3) of the Constitution, ”said Iohannis in the notification.
The President pointed out that, in the form of the initiator, the legislative initiative contained ten articles and was incorporated into Law No. 272/2004 a series of 40 modifications and completions, and the Chamber of Deputies “substantially” modified the normative act, intervening legislatively in 63 texts.
The president indicated that the modifications made by the deputies have a completely different normative object from that considered by the initiator and, implicitly, by the Senate, violating the provisions of the Constitution regarding the competence of the Decision Chamber in the legislative procedure.
“The law that is deduced from the control of constitutionality was adopted in violation of the constitutional provisions regarding the restitution of the law, since the Chamber of Deputies eluded the decision-making competence of the Senate, depriving it of this quality,” said the CCR in the notification.
Iohannis stressed that failure to comply with this aspect of the procedure leads to the general unconstitutionality of the law.
He added that the law refers to “health education” programs, replacing the term currently used – that of “sex education” programs, emphasizing that this newly introduced terminology requires the appropriate amendment of all other provisions of the Act. no. 272/2004.
In this context, in his opinion, the law introduces only one change of form, without legal consequences.
According to the president, at the same time, it is not clear from the wording if the norm establishes that life education programs are to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and minor pregnancies or that health education is to prevent them, and by removing the phrase “the at least once a semester” the text became confusing.
