Opinion against the cancellation of the elections, at the CCR. Experiment with AI

I asked Chat GPT to transpose into the CCR judge and to make a separate opinion on Decision no.32. Here’s what came out:

Separate opinion

(formulated by a fictional constitutional judge)

With respect for my colleagues in the majority, I see myself having to formulate separate opinion from the decision no. 32/2024, by which the Constitutional Court of Romania decided to annul the electoral process related to the presidential elections of 2024.

⸻

1. The Court does not have the competence to cancel the elections

The Constitution of Romania, in art. 146 letter. f), establishes that the attribution of the Court is to « watch over the procedure for the election of the president » and to « confirm the result of the elections ».
This text does not give the Court the attribution to cancel the electoral process as a whole.
The lack of an express disposition in this regard cannot be suppressed by extensive interpretation, without violating the principle of legality and separation of powers.

⸻

2. The electoral process had been partially validated by confirmation of tour I

At the time of adoption of the Decision no. 32/2024, the Court had already validated the first round of the poll, by not to the results and by the official registration of the qualified candidates for the second round.
This default validation was an act with legal and political effects.
The court cannot return to its own validation, in the absence of a legal review procedure, which does not exist in the Romanian constitutional law.

⸻

3. Retroactive cancellation violates legal security

The principle of security of legal relationships implies that definitive legal acts cannot be arbitrarily canceled, especially when affecting fundamental rights, such as the right to be chosen and to choose.
The cancellation of the entire electoral process – after its development – produces a dangerous precedent that can generate democratic instability.

⸻

4. Such a decision is the attribute of the legislative, not of the CCR

If the electoral law is lacunar or allows major defects, then the Parliament is the institution called to correct the legal framework, it does not intervene in the absence of a clear legal basis.
Otherwise, the Court comes out of the sphere of its function of constitutional guarantor and enters a regulatory and political decision.

⸻

In conclusion:

I consider that the decision no. 32/2024 surplus the duties of the Court and violates the fundamental principles of the rule of law.
CCR cannot cancel what has already validated. By this act, the Court created a precedent in which the popular will expressed by vote is canceled without the express constitutional basis and without a regulated procedure.

This is, in my opinion, an unrequited exceedance of the CCR competences.

Signed,
Constitutional judge X.
(separate opinion)

Viorel Ioniță