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.

Guarantees must always and in any case act as an essential beacon of judicial and political action. This presupposition should inspire, even if we want to disregard the "clash" between powers in progress, a thoughtful and careful reflection, both of a theoretical and political nature, and of a procedural nature.

The basic question of a meditation of this consistency, conducted from a functional and "constituent" perspective, should primarily lead to a "change" of perspective on the role and purpose of any potential juridical-legislative reform, which, and it also seems idle having to remember it, could not in any way be "conditioned". Only in the full and complete adhesion to this different methodology of cognitive and ideological approach, the juridical culture of the Country will be able not only to realign the subject of the debate by bringing it back to the constitutional ground, but even to re-accredit and focus, addressing them on the level of a legitimate adversarial debate, some of the same arguments at the basis of the meeting-clash of opinions/positions in progress. The misunderstandings which seem to be witnessing between justice and politics, ultimately amplified and underlined by current events especially in their aspects of a purely criminal law imprint, would seem to help clarify the roots of what would appear to be a basic incompatibility/misunderstanding between the 'need to operate and deliberate according to the dictates that should be proper to a constitutional State and to intervene on the delicate balance between the highest powers, i.e. the judiciary and the executive one, equally necessary to ensure the good orientation of civil society and whose confrontation , even lit, could only reverberate, as it would seem to reverberate, in a negative sense on civil society itself. In other words: even if the need to start a discussion and a planning of concrete reform which proposes to intervene in the regulatory and procedural field in a coherent and rational way appears true, however, it seems equally true that such a reform cannot and should not start from events that would appear to have nothing to do with the primary need to guarantee a complex of functional and structured rules for the needs of the associates, for which, in essence, it would seem to come into relief, and rather, the need to exclude any potential injury of the principle of equality before the law.

On this, the executive power and the judiciary should confront each other, each operating in its own sphere. The guarantee is an essential feature of legality and criminal jurisdiction as it directly and immediately concerns the protection of all the associates from any potential and unacceptable distortion of the law and the criminal process. In the context, the work of the Judiciary and Politics in the respective fields must always be guaranteed and, likewise, primary consideration must be given to the principle set out in article 27 of the Constitution according to which any defendant (therefore least of all a suspect) cannot be considered guilty until final conviction.

Giuseppina Di Salvatore – Lawyer, Nuoro

© Riproduzione riservata