MP Aleksandrs Kiršteins: The prestige of the Constitutional Court can no longer be saved

On Monday, instead of electing a new judge of the Constitutional Court, Saeima deputies gave harsh criticism to the court for disregarding its boundaries of competence and indulging certain ideologies, rather than following the basic state law and laws passed by the Saeima. One of the critics was Aleksandrs Kiršteins, a deputy of the National Alliance (Nacionālā apvienība), who was among the deputies who supported the establishment of the Constitutional Court at the end of the last century.

A. Kiršteins is not the only one who believes that Latvia can do without the Constitutional Court, because the fathers of the Constitution did not consider such an institution necessary.

One of the arguments was that at that time the Constitution and its message were clear and self-evident to everyone - thus requiring no explanations or interpretations. For example, about what a family is and what kind of family the state should defend.

However, the last decision of the Constitutional Court, which obliged the state to arrange the regulatory framework so that the state would also take care of the protection of same-sex families, is just the last drop in the cup of patience for those who question the necessity of the court.

Dissatisfaction with the decisions of the Constitutional Court began to grow with its decision that a referendum on the return of Abrene to the Russian Federation was not necessary, as Abrene was a newly acquired territory.

A. Kiršteins is concerned that with the growing trends and analogy with the case of Abrene, the Constitutional Court may decide in the future that a referendum is not necessary on the issue of Latgale, because Latgale, unlike Kurzeme and Vidzeme, has never been an autonomous province. It was a part of Vitebsk province and partly also of Pskov province. The deputy believes that the court could say by analogy that it is a newly added territory and is not subject to any referendum.

The Constitution stipulates that if the Saeima amends its Article 3, which stipulates that “the territory of the State of Latvia, within the borders established by international agreements, consists of Vidzeme, Latgale, Kurzeme and Zemgale”, the amendments shall be approved by a national referendum.

You were among the deputies who supported the amendments to the Law On Judicial Power in 1994 and 1996, which established the creation of the Constitutional Court and adopted the Constitutional Court Law. Why did you vote like this, if you now believe that Latvia could do without this institution?

Yes, I supported it. It was a beautiful idea, but I was not a part of the Legal Affairs Committee of the Saeima, I had not researched that there is no such Constitutional Court in Sweden, Finland, or even in Estonia. It was only later that I learned that before the war in Latvia it was dealt with by the Senate of the Supreme Court.

In rich countries, the Constitutional Court can exist, for example, in France and Germany. It is a costly pleasure to maintain the Constitutional Court, where judges receive, if I am not mistaken, six thousand. Plus, maintenance of a separate building, land, employees, taxes.

When did the belief, that the idea of ​​a Constitutional Court is beautiful, start to crumble?

The first case of corruption was when Abrene had to be returned to Russia. It can be read in the magazine Otkritij Gorod, where Russian billionaire Aven [Petr Aven, a Russian businessman and patron with a Latvian origin] tells how he came to Latvia on Putin's behalf [President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin] to meet with Vaira Vīķe-Freiberga and settle this issue, which was very important for Russia. Russia at the time was fighting for a visa-free regime with the European Union, which Russia's cleptocracy needed to take out assets. To implement this, border agreements with Latvia and Estonia were needed. That was the EU's demand.

Aven met with Vaira Vīķe-Freiberga, met with Šķēle, and promised on behalf of Putin that Latvia would get great advantages from signing this agreement - the port of Riga would become the destination of the Silk Road. And we know who had an influence in the port of Riga at that time.

At that time, no one was ready to sign the agreement without an attached resolution declaring that Abrene had been stolen from Latvia during the Soviet occupation. Therefore, the respective judgment had to be obtained through the Constitutional Court. Russia said it would not sign the agreement unless a declaration was made that Abrene had gone to the Russians during the Soviet occupation. The declaration had to be removed.

Vīķe-Freiberga told Aigars Kalvītis before he became prime minister for the second time, she said: if there is no border agreement, then he won't be the prime minister. Kalvītis gave the word that he would do everything to solve the issue.

Second decision - Sanita Osipova, Chairwoman of the Constitutional Court, says that the people cannot decide on same-sex families in a referendum, the court instructs the legislator to write laws…

What do you think should be changed in the current order?

The judicial system needs to be reformed following the example of Estonia, Finland, or pre-war Latvia. A law must be developed stipulating that constitutional issues are to be considered by the Senate or a separate chamber of the Supreme Court. The relevant article of the Constitution must be corrected, which is not impossible.

And it is necessary, not because the Constitutional Court is not well-liked. Its prestige can no longer be saved.

You can mend things, you can change the judges, but it would be comparable to a decision to keep the Cheka [KGB] in Latvia, by saying that we have replaced all bad people with good ones.

Who can now look seriously at the Constitutional Court, except for a couple of left-wing liberals, who are delighted by such decisions? No one. The court does not write laws, it cannot say that such and such law must be adopted, the court may only say that a law does not comply with the Constitution.

But that's my opinion, you may think otherwise.