Council of Advice declines handling questions about Buncamper’s suspension
PHILIPSBURG — The Council of Advice will not be drawn into a political discussion about the suspension of independent Member of Parliament Claudius Buncamper. This appears from the Council’s reaction to an advice-request from the parliament.
On June 3 Buncamper sent a letter to parliament with the request to ask the Council of Advice for an advice about the interpretation of articles 50.2 and 50.3 of the constitution. Those articles regulate under which circumstances a member of parliament is suspended.
Buncamper, through his request to the parliament, wanted to know up to what point articles 50.2 and 50.3 of the constitution violate international treaties. He also asked about the role and rights of a substitute Member of Parliament.
The Council refers in its reaction to article 14 of the national ordinance that regulates its functioning. This article stipulates that the Council is authorized to give advice on request or on its own initiative if it considers this necessary in the interest of the country or the kingdom.
The Council concludes that the request it received from the parliament does not relate to an issue that occurs “within a broader social context with a potentially far-reaching impact.” Instead, the questions relate to an individual case. This means, the Council states, that therefore the interest of the country or the kingdom has not been established, at least, as long as the application of the suspension by law-rule in cases of (not yet irrevocable) court rulings does not happen so often that it puts the interest of the country at risk.
A request to the Council for advice about issues other than initiative laws must make sufficiently clear which interest of the country or the kingdom is at stake. Parliament’s request about Buncamper’s questions insufficiently meets this requirement, the Council concludes.
Referring to article 14 of the national ordinance that regulates its functioning, the Council uses its discretionary authority by refraining from handling the request on merit. It adds that the Council is not the appropriate body for answering the questions.
“From its objective position, the Council does not engage in political discussions by formulating legal opinions. Furthermore, the Council is not the appropriate body when the desire arises from an individual case to contest an article in the constitution.”
The Council concludes that it has not been established that the interest of the country or the kingdom is at stake. Therefore, it refrains from handling the request on merit.
###
Related articles:
MP Buncamper challenges his suspension
Appeals Court acquits Buncamper of tax fraud
Parliament handles MP Buncamper’s suspension with kid’s gloves
