Koštunica: Constitution protects Serbia from ruin

BELGRADE Vojislav Kostunica says the Serbian Constitution "passed the test of time" - and proved itself to be the best protection against territorial fragmentation. He also identified "those who wish to destabilize the country from within" as the critics of Serbia's highest legal act, as well as "those interested in making it smaller". Kostunica: Constitution protects Serbia from ruin His party, the DSS, was one of the main advocates and promoters of the new Constitution which was adopted on November 8 six years ago, during Kostunica's first mandate as prime minister. According to DSS release, Kostunica said that Serbia adopted the Constitution at the right moment which made it possible for rule of law to be set up and Serbia's territorial integrity to be preserved. According to him, the Constitution 'passed the test' since it demonstrated that it protects the country in the best possible way from internal degradation and fragmentation of the country's integrity. Kostunica said that he is aware how much energy and propaganda of every kind were invested in changing the Constitution but he added that the power of the Constitution comes from the fact that this is a people's constitution backed by people's will, Kostunica said and expressed the belief that the Constitution is entering a peaceful stage and that it would serve the Serbian nation and Serbia in the best possible way in the time to come. He noted that all counter-constitutional decision would be annulled, just as the counter-constitutional jurisdictions of Vojvodina were annulled. It is important that the Constitution was preserved during the previous regime and the policy that the EU has no alternative because it would otherwise be an issue as to how and within which borders Serbia would survive, Kostunica said. (Beta, file) “Serbia needs new Constitution” A coalition of NGOs dubbed the Civil Vojvodina assessed on Thursday that Serbia “urgently” needs a new Constitution if it wants to secure a political, social and economic stability and join a community of “normal, civilized” countries. Stressing that citizens of Vojvodina had rejected the Constitution at a two-day referendum, the Civil Vojvodina said that Vojvodina had shown its democratic potential back then and that it saw Serbia’s future differently than the rest of the country. Constitutional law professor Marijana Pajvancic told Deutsche Welle Radio that she believed that the existing Constitution was a “generator of political crisis in the country” which was clear by the way it was passed. According to her, the Constitution was a result of a political compromise and not a result of a wide public debate. Lawyers' Committee for Human Rights Director Milan Antonijevic says that the Constitution has past its “best by” date and that it should be modernized as soon as possible. He believes that regulations that would allow European integrations should be added and that “certain regulations regarding human rights and especially Vojvodina’s autonomy should be improved”. While the DSS says in a release that “all unconstitutional decisions will be annulled”, Novi Sad-based Center for Regionalism Director Aleksandar Popov claims that it is now completely clear that Vojvodina only gets a shell of the autonomy thanks to this Constitution. DW’s interlocutors agree that it is necessary to launch a wide public debate as soon as possible in order to modernize the Constitution and to add a clause about the EU if Serbia truly wants to become a part of the European family of nations. Constitutional Court of Serbia judge Bosa Nenadic has said that it is necessary to adopt a new Constitution because the existing one is so bad that it is not enough to make certain changes because it would not bring the desired results. “The Constitution passed in 2006 is confusing in many regulations, it is contradictory, incomplete, solutions are contradictory. This is one of the worst texts in history of Serbia’s constitutionality. I see it every day because I am in a position to interpret the Constitution,” she stressed. The former Constitutional Court of Serbia president said that this was not an opinion of the Court but an opinion she formed as a constitutional law expert and added that there was a lack of consistency in the Constitution. Nenadic noted that the existing procedure, if it was implemented democratically, would not present a big obstacle to the change of the Constitution. Beta Tanjug

Koštunica: Constitution protects Serbia from ruin

His party, the DSS, was one of the main advocates and promoters of the new Constitution which was adopted on November 8 six years ago, during Koštunica's first mandate as prime minister.

According to DSS release, Koštunica said that Serbia adopted the Constitution at the right moment which made it possible for rule of law to be set up and Serbia's territorial integrity to be preserved.

According to him, the Constitution 'passed the test' since it demonstrated that it protects the country in the best possible way from internal degradation and fragmentation of the country's integrity.

Koštunica said that he is aware how much energy and propaganda of every kind were invested in changing the Constitution but he added that the power of the Constitution comes from the fact that this is a people's constitution backed by people's will, Koštunica said and expressed the belief that the Constitution is entering a peaceful stage and that it would serve the Serbian nation and Serbia in the best possible way in the time to come.

He noted that all counter-constitutional decision would be annulled, just as the counter-constitutional jurisdictions of Vojvodina were annulled.

It is important that the Constitution was preserved during the previous regime and the policy that the EU has no alternative because it would otherwise be an issue as to how and within which borders Serbia would survive, Koštunica said.

“Serbia needs new Constitution”

A coalition of NGOs dubbed the Civil Vojvodina assessed on Thursday that Serbia “urgently” needs a new Constitution if it wants to secure a political, social and economic stability and join a community of “normal, civilized” countries.

Stressing that citizens of Vojvodina had rejected the Constitution at a two-day referendum, the Civil Vojvodina said that Vojvodina had shown its democratic potential back then and that it saw Serbia’s future differently than the rest of the country.

Constitutional law professor Marijana Pajvančić told Deutsche Welle Radio that she believed that the existing Constitution was a “generator of political crisis in the country” which was clear by the way it was passed. According to her, the Constitution was a result of a political compromise and not a result of a wide public debate.

Lawyers' Committee for Human Rights Director Milan Antonijević says that the Constitution has past its “best by” date and that it should be modernized as soon as possible. He believes that regulations that would allow European integrations should be added and that “certain regulations regarding human rights and especially Vojvodina’s autonomy should be improved”.

While the DSS says in a release that “all unconstitutional decisions will be annulled”, Novi Sad-based Center for Regionalism Director Aleksandar Popov claims that it is now completely clear that Vojvodina only gets a shell of the autonomy thanks to this Constitution.

DW’s interlocutors agree that it is necessary to launch a wide public debate as soon as possible in order to modernize the Constitution and to add a clause about the EU if Serbia truly wants to become a part of the European family of nations.

Constitutional Court of Serbia judge Bosa Nenadić has said that it is necessary to adopt a new Constitution because the existing one is so bad that it is not enough to make certain changes because it would not bring the desired results.

“The Constitution passed in 2006 is confusing in many regulations, it is contradictory, incomplete, solutions are contradictory. This is one of the worst texts in history of Serbia’s constitutionality. I see it every day because I am in a position to interpret the Constitution,” she stressed.

The former Constitutional Court of Serbia president said that this was not an opinion of the Court but an opinion she formed as a constitutional law expert and added that there was a lack of consistency in the Constitution.

Nenadić noted that the existing procedure, if it was implemented democratically, would not present a big obstacle to the change of the Constitution.