Commenting in Foglio on the opinion of the Council of State on the questions posed by the President of the Senate, Elisabetta Casellati, regarding the annuities of former parliamentarians, Sabino Cassese, for his part, highlighted a critical aspect, up to now not adequately considered in the debate sparked by Roberto Fico's fatwa. Citing the jurisprudence of the Consulta, of which he was an authoritative member, Cassese points out that the normative (autocrinia) and jurisdictional (autodichia) powers recognized by the organs of the Senate and the Chamber cannot be operative towards citizens who not only are no longer parliamentarians (the ex) but who never even were (the holders of reversibility treatments). In essence, the condition of parliamentarian is not a legal status that a person carries with him for life (even if out of tradition and courtesy that are no longer justified he continues to exhibit the appellation). Terminated mandate, perhaps for a long time, or linked by family ties with a ''de cuius'' already a parliamentarian, every citizen has the right to appeal to his natural judge. In order for this to be guaranteed, the measures concerning him must be established by legislative means and not by means of a regulation which allows – claims the former constitutional judge – to re-regulate annuities (Cassese recalls that this institution was suppressed - pro rata - in starting from 2012) paid to people who are no longer members of parliament or who have only been members of their families.
The argument is strong on the legal level and calls into question the legitimacy of the normative source, not for its effects (violation of perfect subjective rights, irrationality, absence of serious and extraordinary reasons, lack of protection of the expectation in a legitimate legal situation , etc.), but by its very nature. Basically, any resolution by the Presidential Council of the Senate, like the one already passed by the Chamber on the initiative of its supreme ayatollah, would be invalidated by a blatant abuse of power. If in fact it can be considered admissible (as is also confirmed in the opinion of the Council of State) that in this controversial matter one intervenes by regulation (this has always happened), it would not be legitimate, in Sabino Cassese's opinion, the exercise against ordinary citizens of an autonomous power reserved to the parliamentarians in office. In his interview with Foglio Cassese he develops many other interesting topics. First of all, he expresses a severe criticism of the role (not) played by the supreme organ of administrative justice. ''It is an opinion that reminds me of Dumas and ''The Three Musketeers'' – he says – In particular the order written in his own hand by Richelieu ''.
The Council's mistake would have been to agree to ''give an opinion in the abstract without having the draft or the outline of the resolution, therefore without knowing its operative content. He gave the go-ahead to something he didn't know, answering three questions that can be given… even very different answers''. This path is admitted in the same opinion. The Council of State writes, which had even set up a special commission to draft the text: ''As a preliminary step, it is necessary to delimit the scope of the consultative intervention of this Council of State. The Senate has not transmitted its own framework of discipline, so the notice of this special Commission can only outline the picture juridical-constitutional that can serve as a reference to the proposed intervention". Put simply, the Commission has returned the ball to the court of the Senate Presidency Council. ''Since there is no operative text – he seemed to say – we can only reason on having to be rather than being''. That is, the mange is yours, scratch it yourself. The problem is above all political: only after having resolved this aspect with a clear assumption of responsibility – this is how the conclusions of the jurist can be interpreted – can one dissertation on the merits. The judges will have to decide; on the contrary, various instances of judgment up to the Consulta. Thus – predicts Cassese – ''those who have ridden the justicialism will end up spending their days with the judges at home. This is what happens to those who exceed in the exercise of their powers''.
