Konstitucijos interpretacinis poreikis
| Author | Affiliation | |
|---|---|---|
Mykolo Romerio universitetas | LT |
| Date |
|---|
2009 |
Konstitucija, būdama reikšmingiausias kiekvienos šalies teisės aktas, lemia visos teisės normų sistemos funkcionalumą. Konstitucija yra tas šaltinis, kuris tampa galutinio teisėtumo materialiu arbitru. Taigi poreikis nuolat garantuoti teisės normų sistemos funkcionalumą formuluoja kitą poreikį – suvokti, suprasti konstituciją, joje įtvirtintų normų ir principų turinį. Straipsnyje atskleidžiami ir aptariami faktoriai, kurie lemia konstitucijos interpretacinę prigimtį. Konstatuojama, kad konstitucijos a) normų abstraktumas, b) konstitucijos normų „konkurencija“, c) konstitucijos vientisumo ir sistemiškumo požymis, bei konstitucijos reguliavimo omisijos problema yra faktoriai, determinuojantys konstitucijos permanentinį interpretacijos poreikį.
Constitutional omission is an enduring problem in the scholarship of legal doctrine. In terms of doctrine, constitutional omission may only be recognized as explicit. If we view the constitution as a systemic document, however, express omission becomes irrelevant, because the constitution must ensure the legality of the entire legal system. The constitution can be understood as a systemic legal act absent of omission. The article concludes that the norms and principles of a constitution are a coherent body. Rather than contradiction or competition, there are only different opinions on the balance of values entrenched in the constitution. The supposed “competition” between specific norms and principles is eliminated in the course of interpretation of the constitution as a systemic document, wherein separate norms and principles cannot be understood isolated regardless of the systemic nature of the constitution.
The constitution’s standing as a legal act of the highest power not only ensures its exclusive status in the legal system but also determines the hierarchic certainty of all norms within that system. The explicit character of the constitution does not preclude it from ensuring the hierarchical functionality of the legal system. This latter function requires that the limitation “problem” of explicitness be addressed by interpreting the constitution as a systemic document. Applying the constitution, therefore, requires a continuous effort in comprehending it. The official doctrine of constitutional judicial institutions reflects the standard for understanding the constitution. This standard becomes the sole source, not only de jure, but significantly de facto, for determining the legality of legal acts. The constitution, as the prime and foremost law in a country, determines the functionality of the entire system of legal norms. As a legal source, it takes on the role of the material arbiter of final legality. The constant need to ensure the functioning of the system of legal norms hence informs yet another necessity–to apprehend and understand the constitution and the norms and principles established within. A few factors induce this perpetual need for interpretation, those being (a) the abstractness of constitutional norms, (b) “competition” among constitutional norms, (c) the integral and systemic nature of the constitution, and (d) the problem of legislative/regulative omission in the constitution.