~ Countries must respect their constitution.~
PHILIPSBURG:--- The Council of Advice in its advice to parliament says that they fail to see the national interest that is at stake since the parliament of St. Maarten did not establish the importance of the land or Kingdom that is at stake.
The board of the Council of Advice met on October 4th to deliberate on the request of the parliament of St. Maarten which wants further clarity on article 50 of the constitution of St. Maarten. The request was sent to the Council of Advice after the suspended MP dispatched a letter to parliament asking that the parliament of St. Maarten explains to what extent article 50 paragraph 2 and 3 of the constitution violate international treaties.
What are the role and rights of an acting Member of Parliament and what means to act for a Suspended Member of Parliament?
The council said that its role is to provide advice to the country if the need arises
Article 43, paragraph 1, of the Statute, lays down the primary achievement of the fundamental human rights and freedoms, legal certainty, and the
soundness of government in the countries of the Kingdom. The Statute states that each country of the Kingdom guarantees these values.
However, if the country has fundamental rights and freedoms, legal certainty, and soundness of the
government cannot or does not want to insure, then the Kingdom is additionally responsible for ensuring this guarantee.
The Kingdom therefore also has a guaranteed function. This means that Sint Maarten - as well as the other countries of the Kingdom via the Constitution, must ensure the realization of these fundamental values.
The original reason for setting the Parliament's questions is based on an incoming letter dated June 3, 2022, from Mr. C.A. Buncamper, addressed to the States in which he ordered the suspension of raises his/her membership of Parliament and invokes the international treaty law. This means that the context in which the States request does not relate to an issue that arises occurs in a broader social context with a potentially far-reaching impact, but specifically refers to an individual case. The 'Importance of the Country' or the Kingdom', in the opinion of the Council, has thus not been established stand, at least not so long application of the rule of suspension or by operation of law in the event of a (not yet irrevocable) judicial conviction does not occur so often that the national interest is at stake. Be the submission of a request for advice to the Council by Parliament, not being a private member's bill, it must be sufficiently clear which concrete interest of the Country or Kingdom is at stake and why. In the opinion of the Council, this has not been done sufficiently in this case. The Council uses this of its discretion as laid down in Article 14 of the National Ordinance Advisory Council by abstaining from further substantive treatment.
Although the Council understands the collective wish of the States to be further informed on the matter at hand, he must unfortunately
determine that in this case, he is not the appropriate body to answer the questions posed. After all, the Council acts on the basis of its objective position in political discussions by formulating legal opinions. Moreover, the Council is not the appropriate body when in an individual case the desire arises to adopt a Constitutional provision to fight. The Council has already stated in its advice 11 August 2020 determined that he is at the deliberations stage and is not the appropriate body to respond substantively to the questions posed to go. Also in that advice is the required 'interest of the Country or the Kingdom' brought to the attention. The Council asks that this be taken into account.
According to the Board, it has not yet been established that 'the importance of the Land or Kingdom" is at issue. In view of the above, the Council sees from further substantive treatment.
Click here to see the original advice sent to the Parliament of St. Maarten on October 6th, 2022.
