Theoretical and Practical Aspects regarding the Duties of the President of Romania in the Procedure of Naming the Government – Part I

Oana Saramet

doi:10.31926/but.ssl.2021.14.63.3.10

Abstract

According to the current constitutional provisions in force, the President of Romania has duties in regard to the naming of the Government, as he is the one who begins this procedure by appointing a candidate for the position of prime minister; the President is also the one who concludes this procedure, based on the vote of confidence granted by the Parliament. Considering these constitutional provisions, state practice, doctrine, jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court of Romania, but also the constitutional provisions of other states, we aim to analyze certain delicate aspects which occur in the exercise of these duties. We will appreciate on the existence or inexistence of a discretionary power of the head of state in the exercise of these duties. In this scientific endeavor, we will use specific methods of research, as is the comparative one, the logic one, the systemic and/or the teleological one.

Highlights

The Romanian lawmaker has stated, both by the 1991 Constitution as well as by its revisal, that the president of a country whose constitutional role is stated is article 80 of the Constitution must perform “a function of mediation between the powers of the state, between the state and society”
According to the current constitutional provisions in force, the President of Romania has duties in regard to the naming of the Government, as he is the one who begins this procedure by appointing a candidate for the position of prime minister; the President is the one who concludes this procedure, based on the vote of confidence granted by the Parliament
Given the above mentioned situations, we can state certain specific issues; within this first part dedicated to this task, we aim to identify possible answers to the following question: is there a constitutional possibility for the President of Romania to play an active role in exercising his duties, by exercising discretionary power in appointing the candidate for the office of prime minister, ignoring the result of the consultation he holds to this end with the party which holds Parliament majority or with the parties which are represented in Parliament if we are again confronted with such a situation?

Summary

Introduction

The Romanian lawmaker has stated, both by the 1991 Constitution as well as by its revisal, that the president of a country whose constitutional role is stated is article 80 of the Constitution must perform “a function of mediation between the powers of the state, between the state and society”. The Constitutional Court of Romania stated that “the function of guaranteeing and supervising stated in article 80 of the Constitution entails, by definition, the observation of the existence and functioning of the state, the Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Braşov Series VII Vol 14(63), Special Issue vigilant supervision of the way in which the actors of public life behave - public authorities, constitutional organizations, civil society - and the respect of the principles and regulations established by the Constitution, the protection of the fundamental values as regulated in the Fundamental law” (the Constitutional Court of Romania, advisory notice no 1/2007, point 3.9, paragraph 6). In our opinion, in regard to the above-mentioned statement, the head of the state, must act as stated above even when he is [performing hid specific constitutional duties within the procedure of naming the Government

Objectives

Conclusion