Referendum, the Constitutional Court admits 5 on justice, cannabis and euthanasia rejected

After the No to the referendum on euthanasia, the Constitutional Court also expressed its opinion on the questions relating to Justice, declaring five out of six admissible, and on cannabis, instead judging it inadmissible because it contained "references to thoughtful drugs", he explained the president of the Constitutional Court Giuliano Amato at the end of the council chamber.

Referendum on Justice

The Consulta has given the green light to 5 of the 6 abrogative referendums on Justice. In the coming months, Italians will therefore be called to vote on the separation of the careers of magistrates and on the Severino law. The question on pre-trial detention and the one who wants to cancel the signatures necessary to be able to present a candidacy for the election of the professional councilors of the CSM are also admitted. During the afternoon press conference, the president of the Constitutional Court, Giuliano Amato, announced the admissibility of the question on the recognition in judicial councils of the right of lawyers to vote on the assessments of professionalism of judges. 

These are five of the six referendums proposed by the League and the Radical party, but presented by eight regions governed by the centre-right. “The aforementioned questions – explained the High Court in a note – were deemed admissible because the respective requests do not fall within any of the hypotheses for which the constitutional order excludes recourse to the referendum institution”.

The only question judged inadmissible was that on the direct responsibility of the magistrates. 

The questions allowed on Justice

Separation of careers: if the referendum passes, the possibility for magistrates to pass from the function of judge to that of public prosecutor and vice versa will be further reduced. To date it can be done four times, which with the Cartabia reform are reduced to two. The request is to give the possibility to carry out this step only once. 

Pre-trial detention: The question intervenes on the presuppositions of preventive detention established by article 274 of the Code of penal procedure which, if the referendum were to pass, can be confirmed only in case of danger of escape. Pre-trial detention cannot be confirmed for crimes punished up to a maximum of 5 years and not even for public funding of parties.

Severino law: the question repeals the legislative decree of 2012 which establishes the ineligibility and forfeiture of elected offices for those who are definitively sentenced to a sentence exceeding two years in prison. 

The signatures for the CSM: the purpose in this case is to disempower currents of the judiciary. In fact, the question asks for the elimination of the 25-50 signatures required in order to be able to present a candidacy for the election of the professional councilors of the CSM.

Lawyers' right to vote: with this question the intention is to allow lawyers to vote on judicial councils on the "report cards" for magistrates. If the law on the CSM just proposed by the Minister of Justice, Marta Cartabia, is approved, the question on the right to vote for lawyers in the Judicial Councils becomes de facto useless.

Referendum on cannabis

The question on cannabis contained an error on the table and as it stood could not be approved. This is the summary of what the president of the Consulta, Giuliano Amato, said at the press conference. Explaining the reasons for the rejection of the question on the decriminalization of cannabis, the president said. “The referendum was not on cannabis, but on narcotics. Reference was made to substances that include poppy, coca, the so-called hard drugs. And that was enough to make us violate international obligations.” 

Going into the details of the decision, Amato in fact reiterated: “The question was divided into 3 sub-questions. The first relating to article 73 paragraph 1 of the law on drugs provides that the cultivation of narcotic substances disappears among the criminally punishable activities in tables 1 and 3, but cannabis is in table 2, those include poppy, coke, so-called hard drugs – already this is enough for make us violate multiple international obligations that we have and that are an indisputable limitation of the referendums. And they lead us to ascertain the unsuitability of the aim pursued ”, he concludes.

“If the question had been on cannabis alone it would have been more than admissible”, added the president of the Consulta, who answered the journalists' questions and said: “If you are asking me if the cultivation of cannabis on the terrace must be legal, I would never pronounce on the inadmissibility of such a question”.

POI a message to Parliament: “the themes of values ​​are the most important and they are the ones that divide our society. Our parliament may be that it is too busy with economic issues but perhaps does not spend enough time trying to find solutions. The parliamentarians work but have great difficulty in agreeing on these issues. It is essential that in Parliament they understand that if these go out of their agenda they can feed corrosive disagreements of social cohesion ".

Referendum on euthanasia

Yesterday, Monday 15 February, the Constitutional Court instead declared the referendum on euthanasia is inadmissible. The wait is now for the reasons that will be published within 30 days, but in a note the High Court explained that "the minimum constitutionally necessary protection of human life would not be preserved". "Read or hear - he underlined at the press conference the president of the Constitutional Court - that whoever took the decision on euthanasia yesterday does not know what suffering is hurt me. The word 'euthanasia' led to all of this. The referendum was on the murder of the consenting, which would have been lawful in cases much more numerous and different from euthanasia”.