Those in favour and against the Justice Reform, and the different positions on the "Yes" and "No" votes in the referendum on 22 and 23 March, entered the Court of Appeal of Cagliari this morning, during and on the sidelines of the inauguration ceremony of the judicial year.
Attorney General Luigi Patronaggio addressed this in his speech: "A reform of this magnitude not only impacts judicial matters, but also shifts a cornerstone of the complex edifice of the Constitution, which was created with great but shared labor by all political forces of the time.
Indeed, it cannot be denied that the reform, by striking at the democratic representativeness of the CSM , which has been undermined by an irrational selection of its members, not only undermines the autonomy and independence of the judiciary, which was guaranteed by the old CSM, albeit with some undeniable criticalities, but has in fact profoundly affected the balance of relations between the powers of the State.
Explaining that he did not wish to comment on the merits of the vote, Patronaggio observed: "What is critical, from my point of view, is that the text reached the Chamber in a sealed box, without the opportunity for the opposition and representatives of the judiciary and civil society to contribute suggestions and amendments. A great constitutional scholar had pointed out, long ago, that constitutional reforms must come either from the electorate or from Parliament, certainly not from the government."
On the other hand, the president of the Bar Association, Matteo Pinna, who spoke immediately afterwards, while prefaced by his refusal to delve into the merits of the matter , as the ceremony was not the place for a technical debate or political considerations, was keen to point out that "in liberal democracies, autonomy and independence are a guarantee for citizens and must be combined with responsibility; they cannot become a tool for corporate and self-referential defense.
A sense of institutions and respect for democratic discourse —and with them confidentiality, discretion, and balance—are essential preconditions for autonomy and independence to be perceived as instruments of service, not of power.
This is especially true in a delicate moment like the one we are experiencing: on the merits of reforms, all opinions are legitimate, but politically shaping judicial associations and branding supporters of different ideas as enemies of democracy and the Constitution risks having consequences for trust in the judiciary and the very legitimacy of the judiciary that will last well beyond the referendum deadline. The judiciary, as an independent and widespread power, is one of the constitutional antidotes—perhaps the most important—to political populism; it must not be a component of it.