If on the one hand, with regard to the Santanchè and Delmastro cases, the executive, in the days that have just passed, has deemed it necessary to invite the magistrates not to deal with political events, the ANM, on the other hand, according to what has been learned from the major and most accredited news agencies, felt, however, that it should invoke the principle of respect for the independence of judges and for the separation of powers and, at the same time, that it should claim its "duty" to intervene, expressing one's position, on the reforms that concern justice and which cannot be presented to general attention as "punitive measures".
The need to regulate the interrelationships between the judiciary and politics, comparing it to the dynamics characterizing any State that wants to define itself as democratic and liberal, as well as an effective balancing of all the constitutional principles involved, has always existed, and would even seem to ignore, on the an exquisitely ideological level, from the crisis (at least such it would appear to be) which started on the occasion of the recent vicissitudes. Well. For years, therefore, the ideological clash between two of the highest powers of the state seems to have been taking place: and if it is true, as it seems to be true, that the separation of powers is one of the cardinal principles of liberal constitutionalism and, as such, it should appear useful, as in fact it appears useful, to connote, in their complexity, and in large part, the same constitutional democracies, however, it seems equally true, that one cannot think of neglecting the circumstance that, author or, better, presumed one, victim/offended person, associates/civil society and the State would appear to be, and should be, the protagonists of a procedural-normative equation which should find its broadest and most rational key to interpretation in "guaranteeism". But then, if this should be the case, why from time to time do we find ourselves witnessing the consummation of a clash which, rather than supporting the entire institutional system in its entirety, would seem to contribute to de-functionalizing it? Just as it does not seem possible to claim to be able to influence the exercise of jurisdiction, subordinating it to the "favour" of the government, likewise it does not seem to be possible to claim to intervene on the independence and impartiality, both constitutionally guaranteed, of the judicial order.
