Ramos-Horta vetoes Timor-Leste presidential responsibility law

Court grants the president’s appeal to declare the proposed law passed by parliament as unconstitutional

Timor-Leste President Jose Ramos-Horta has vetoed a proposed law on presidential responsibilities after a court ruling granted his appeal and declared it unconstitutional.

“The decision and the reasons of the court fully justify the exercise of my veto,” the president said in a statement while informing that he had passed his veto rights on June 27 to the national parliament.

The Court of Appeals had on June 24 passed its ruling on the proposed law passed by the parliament a few days before Ramos-Horta assumed the presidency on May 20.

The president was of the opinion that its focus on establishing a criminal liability statute focused only on the president left out all other sovereign bodies and holders of political office and high public positions in a “direct affront to the constitution” and “violating the principle of separation of powers.”

He asked the parliament to ensure that the laws they pass are consistent with the constitution.

The law was proposed by rival parties including the Revolutionary Front for the East Timor Independent Party (Fretilin), which backed the president’s rival and predecessor Francisco “Lu-Olo” Guterres.

The president said the law consisting of 30 articles and stipulating the president’s constitutional obligations had the potential to limit and affect the exercise of his discretionary powers

It came amid fears that the new president could dissolve the parliament after his inauguration pronounced publicly by Xanana Gusmao, chairman of the Timor Reconstruction National Congress Party and main supporter of Ramos-Horta’s candidacy.

The concerns prompted Archbishop Dom Virgilio Do Carmo da Silva of Dili to urge Ramos-Horta to respect the constitution after elections and act “as a father figure for the country’s people and be respected by all political groups.”

Ramos-Horta has dismissed the issue, saying the dissolution of parliament was not his “first priority.”

The president said the law consisting of 30 articles and stipulating the president’s constitutional obligations had the potential to limit and affect the exercise of his discretionary powers.

His petition to the court said the law “constitutes a serious violation of the rule of law in the manner that it seeks to criminalize the actions of a specific individual rather than the behavior of a group of people, i.e. office holders of state organs.”

It further said that the proposed law could fundamentally subvert the constitutional system and had the potential to constrain the president’s action and leave him at the mercy of party-political wrangling in government and parliament.

The proposed law had proposed prison sentences of varying durations in cases of “coercion against a constitutional body” and an “attack against the constitution” or  “attempts to challenge the constitution … with the aim of changing or suspending it by force or by means other than democratically provided.”

Latest News