WORLD WORLDWIDE EUROPE ITALY - news journal UPDATE - (en) Italy, UCADI, #204 - FROM A LETTER FROM A JUDGE TO HER FATHER, A LAWYER ON (ca, de, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

Dear Dad... Regardless of my own opinion, I've heard constitutionalists and other jurists to whom I cannot even begin to compare, denouncing the method used to arrive at this constitutional reform: first, because of its government initiative and then because of the parliamentary process, which, not only because of its speed, did not allow for a real debate in Parliament on the issues involved, but in doing so also deprived the "people" (I prefer this expression to the overly manipulated "public opinion") of the time and arguments necessary to form an informed opinion on such a fundamental issue... ... then, that a constitutional reform can pass with the sole vote of the parliamentary majority that supports the government, elected on the basis of a majority law, seems worrying to me... also because the ultimate goal of this reform, through the High Disciplinary Court, is precisely to ensure that the judicial protection of rights is not exercised by judges. in conflict with the goals of the governing majority...

Certainly, the reform does not ensure a better functioning of the justice system... a topic to which you have dedicated your entire life... By allowing the prosecutor to be placed under the control of the executive, it ensures less control by the criminal judge over crimes committed by politicians... but then it would have been better to reinstate parliamentary immunity... if we are not a sufficiently mature democracy to allow for a true rule of law...
But the most serious aspect, in my opinion, is not so much this, but the resulting reduction in the protection of citizens' rights, even those guaranteed by the constitution. This protection, if not welcomed by the majority in power, could lead to disciplinary sanctions...!!
This reform is part of a broader context in which, within advanced democracies, reforms do not touch the first part of the Constitution, leaving fundamental rights on paper, but strip away the independence of judges, thus eliminating their effective protection...
The separation of careers is a decoy... it already exists. Further strengthening it did not require a constitutional reform.
The problem is the dual CSM, with magistrates appointed by lot!!!! which will weaken the autonomy of both prosecutors and judges... the introduction of the drawing of lots into the Constitution for the formation of a body provided for by it: a serious attack on the principle of representativeness that underpins democracy: a remedy worse than the disease of factions, which exposes those selected to pressure of all kinds... an unimaginable scenario.
Why not also elect Parliament by lot, then?
The drawing of lots negates any grassroots aggregation based on shared values... and that, through the representative mechanism, brings those values to bear on the decisions made by the elected body. The factions were, should have been, and in part still are...
The drawing of lots exposes them to external influences of all kinds... belonging to a faction has no impact on trials: certainly, the set of values each judge embodies affects the interpretation of the law: but this is inherent in the fact of distributed power. And then there is the Supreme Court, which brings everything back together with five judges who must find mediation and a point of balance in accordance with the Constitution.
The lack of separation of careers had no influence on the outcome of trials... proof of this is the very high number of acquittals... indeed, it guaranteed a certain knowledge of the law to the prosecutor who, with the separation of careers and the separate CSM, will inevitably become a super cop...
The consequence of this reform for citizens will be the undermining of the protection of constitutionally guaranteed rights. It's better for judges to belong to factions than to political parties... and judges cannot be denied the right to be part of social groups... because, in the dream of our constituent assembly, social groups serve not only the fulfillment of the individual, but also the common good.
This, Dad, is what I think, based on what you taught me, and what I've experienced in these 24 years in the judiciary.

https://www.ucadi.org/2026/01/31/da-una-lettera-di-una-giudice-al-padre-giurista-sul-referendum/
_________________________________________

(en) Italy, UCADI, #204 - FROM A LETTER FROM A JUDGE TO HER FATHER, A LAWYER ON (ca, de, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

A-infos-en@ainfos.ca