“Romania is currently an arrested country”

The current situation is one generated by the “de facto vacancy” (ex legis) of the position of President of Romania, as a result of the expiration of the normal constitutional term of the mandate of the former President and the objective impossibility of occupying the position by a new President due to the cancellation ( on Dec. 6, 2024) of the elections, and not one generated by the situations expressly and limitedly provided for in the Constitution, respectively by the constitutional interim of the position of President. Here the interim of the position intervened outside the situations expressly provided for in the Constitution – which does not eliminate from the start or definitively a new case of interim of the presidential position.

The fact exists – the normal/constitutional mandate of the President has expired. But Romania cannot legally function without a president. This position must be exercised permanently, either de jure by the President in full constitutional mandate, or by the person who provides the interim position of President, both de jure, “ex constitutio” – which is preferable -, or de facto , “extra/anti constitutio”, as is now the situation of former President Iohannis – which is not preferable, on the contrary, it is even unconstitutional and abusive).

But let’s take them one by one:

The interim position of President, from 22 Dec. 2024 and until the swearing in of the new President-elect as a result of the full resumption of the presidential elections, it is neither motivated nor convened in the person of the current (former) President, except under the conditions presented below.

Art. 83 of the Constitution provides for the duration of the mandate (5 years – fixed term – according to paragraph 1); exercise of the function under normal/ordinary conditions (until the oath is taken by the newly elected President (para. 2).

The resumption of the entire electoral process as a result of Hot. CCR places us in an exception to the rule provided in paragraph 2 of art. 83 of the Constitution, and, therefore, the President in office, after the expiration date of his own mandate, can no longer exercise the function without an organic law extending the mandate.

After the expiration date of the incumbent President’s mandate, the interim office takes place, except in war or disaster situations. Both of these two situations are declared by organic law.

I don’t know if we are in these situations (God forbid!) because we don’t have an organic law to that effect.

An interpretation (in the sense of Hot. CCR) of the state of information war has not been discussed so far, nor in the sense of the existence of a catastrophe (this, if we could not interpret that the silence and absence of Iohannis so far, would be a catastrophe in itself!!).

I have always said that legally, the president in office can exercise the prerogatives of the position after the expiration of the mandate, ONLY if his mandate is extended by organic law. Otherwise, the quoted text does not allow it (par. 3 of art. 83). Until this moment, we do NOT have such an organic law, so Iohannis unconstitutionally exercises the prerogatives of the position!

Moreover, the lack of such an organic law puts us in the situation that upon the expiration of the incumbent President’s mandate, the interim of the position intervenes by right.

We are not talking about the vacancy of the position, because this intervenes, according to art. 97 paragraph 1 of the Constitution, only in 4 situations:

– dismissal;

– resignation;

– definitive impossibility to exercise the duties;

– death.

None of these are incidents.

We return to the interim position.

He intervenes, according to art. 98 paragraph 1, only in case of

– vacancy of the position (the 4 hypotheses listed above);

– temporary impossibility of exercising the duties;

– suspension from office.

We do not find these situations either.

The expiration of Iohannis’ mandate could apparently be included in the “definitive impossibility to exercise the duties” (because an expired mandate deprives the holder, definitively, of the right to exercise the duties of the position), but this reason has sight – as a rule – physical impossibility, for reasons of health, of definitive conviction, disappearance.

Once the government resulting from the recent elections and the will of the parliamentary majority has been installed, but also as long as the new leadership of the current Parliament has taken office in accordance with the negotiations between the parliamentary parties, it can be considered that the interim position of President of Romania will be exercised by a other person than the former President Iohannis whose mandate expired on Dec. 21. 2024.

It is not an option of the former President this interim and his remaining (or not) in the position of President until the swearing in of a new President elected as a result of the reorganization of the presidential elections.

Such an option (whether or not the former President is still in Cotroceni) belongs to the new Parliament – as the most representative political body resulting from the recent parliamentary elections, this institution best representing the recent will of the majority of Romanians who participated in the vote for the Parliament.

Legally and with respect, first of all towards the Romanians, there would be a loyal, fair, legal dialogue between the institution of the Parliament and the institution of the President of Romania on this matter, immediately followed by a joint communique and a press conference, settling in a civilized manner, constitutionally and quickly the stay or not of the former President in Cotroceni, until the swearing in of the new President (which will result from the reorganization of the presidential elections).

This would largely end the uncertainty and interpretations (some even abusive) of the Constitution and the other regulations regarding the function of the President of Romania, and its interim (!?) This would also put an end to those speculations (very harmful in the current context) related to who would be entitled to occupy temporarily and with duties restricted to current management issues, the position (expired even as a legal term) of President of Romania, until the swearing in of a new constitutionally elected President.

In the silence of the constitutional law, but taking into account and appealing to the parliamentary and constitutional customs – which in most cases come to complete and maintain a framework as faithful as possible to the spirit of the Constitution -, only the loyal, legal dialogue between the two institutions (Parliament and the Presidency of Romania), appear entitled (and are entitled) to establish concretely whether or not the former President can still exercise restricted powers related to the current affairs of the position of President of Romania, until the swearing in of the new President who will be elected from the reorganization of the presidential elections.

Such a settlement of this sensitive constitutional issue would largely end the speculations and would give an obvious signal that the accident that generated (on 06.12.2024) the cancellation of the elections for the President of Romania and their reorganization, although it generated a constitutional shock and emotions in the opinion domestic and international public, still has a civilized, non-violent, rational, legal solution – taking into account the most recent majority will of of the electorate participating in the vote -, but also the most in accordance with the law and the spirit of the Romanian Constitution.

The adoption of a legal, rational and quick solution represents the most powerful and civilized way of defusing a constitutional, social and media tension, but also the strongest blow for the hybrid war (propagated especially through the media and through religion for years!!) to which Romanians are exposed through propaganda, through fake news or out of context and misinterpreted, through aggressive religious indoctrination, through media coverage to the point of nauseating saturation of some so-called “Orthodox religious” “customs”, “practices” and “traditions” (but also in some neo-Protestant environments and cults!) in fact and with a strong rudimentary imprint (obviously contrary to civilized practice and the doctrine of the Romanian Orthodox Church), but which distorted both public perception (and continues to do so constantly!), as well as trust in democratic institutions in Romania, in free elections, in the parliamentary system. At the same time, it would represent a clear and civilized signal that Romania is capable of responding to the hybrid war with concrete, civilized and firm solutions, that it is capable of combating such attacks, rehabilitating its image, re-occupying its position, reviving its hope.

Media aggression and manipulation / external interference can be combated by radical, firm and urgent measures. The internal consequences produced at the highest level of these hybrid operations can be combated and resolved in the best, fastest and civilized way through the loyal inter-institutional dialogue of the institutions involved, targeted, with legal and constitutional powers.

The delay in solving this major and current issue gives the signal that something is not working correctly in the Romanian democratic system. From this perspective, an urgent (immediate) solution is required and the quick resolution of the temporary (temporary, interim) “occupant” of the Cotroceni seat.