Poles object to former PiS MPs, Pawłowicz and Piotrowicz, being appointed to the captured Constitutional Tribunal [OPINION POLL]

Share

Journalist at OKO.press. Graduated in law and philosophy from University of Warsaw.

More

In the Ipsos poll* for OKO.press, Poles were asked whether they think it is appropriate that people who until recently were PiS MPs, active in public life, are the Constitutional Tribunal judges. As many as 65% of the respondents said it was wrong, with as many as 49% saying it was “decidedly wrong”. Just 23% said it was normal practice.



The governing coalition in Poland, which justifies the sweeping changes into courts by the need to depoliticize the justice system, is spectacularly politicizing the Constitutional Tribunal. Krystyna Pawłowicz and Stanisław Piotrowicz were still Prawo i Sprawiedliwość (PiS party, Law and Justice) MPs in September 2019, whereas, they were already judges of the Constitutional Tribunal in November. President Andrzej Duda took the oath of office from Krystyna Pawłowicz and Stanisław Piotrowicz in December 2019. Quietly, without the media being present.

 

Pawłowicz and Piotrowicz soon started to rule of the constitutionality of the legal provisions, on which they themselves worked when they were MPs. This was the case, for example, with the October 2020 ruling on the restriction of the right to abortion – Krystyna Pawłowicz, as an MP, signed an identical motion to the Constitutional Tribunal in the Sejm’s previous term of office – or the case of the ruling on the fictitious competence dispute between the Supreme Court and the Sejm in 2020.

 

However, Pawłowicz’s and Piotrowicz’s transfer to the Constitutional Tribunal was controversial not only for its legal but also for its symbolic dimension. It showed that the party is allowed absolutely everything, as both Pawłowicz and Piotrowicz were among PiS’s most controversial parliamentarians.

 

“Pigsty”, “shut up”, “shut your gobs as the chairman said”, “pig MPs” – Krystyna Pawłowicz happened to shout at opposition Civic Platform MPs during Justice Committee meetings and from the Sejm rostrum. “Whereas the red-headed BEAST is circling (…) frolicking, lying, scheming,” she wrote about Donald Tusk; “Ms. Janda is the voice of the streetwalkers who show women’s reproductive organs at demonstrations”, she commented on the speech of the famous actress. She referred to the EU flag as a “rag”, “I associate it with something bad, not good, dirty”.

 

Piotrowicz is one of the more “deserving” people in PiS. He was a senator from the party in 2005–2011 and an MP from 2011 to 2019. in the previous term of office, Piotrowicz was the Justcie Committee chairman, thus co-responsible for changes into courts enforced since 2015. (In)famously, in communist Poland, Piotrowicz worked as a prosecutor from 1978 to 2002. Although he himself declares that he “has a beautiful past”, his activities during the period of martial law give rise to serious doubts. At the end of his prosecution activity in 2001, he became famous for defending a paedophile priest.

 

Pawłowicz and Piotrowicz were also members of the neo-National Council of Judiciary.

In the Ipsos poll* for OKO.press in April 2021, Poles were asked whether they think it is appropriate that people who until recently were PiS MPs, active in public life, are the Constitutional Tribunal judges. As many as 65% of the respondents said it was wrong, with as many as 49% saying it was “decidedly wrong”. Just 23% said it was normal practice.

 

Do you consider it appropriate that judges, who, among others, until recently were PiS MPs, who were active in public life, are members of the Constitutional Tribunal?

Answers:

Decidedely yes – 9 %,

Rather yes – 14 %,

Rather no – 16 %

Decidedely no – 46 %

Don’t know/difficult to say – 16 %

 

Among those with primary and secondary school education, 41% of those surveyed considered judge-politicians to be inappropriate; whereas the figure was twice as high among those with bachelor’s degrees and higher, at a level of 80%.

 

This kind of judicial nomination is considered normal practice by just 22% of the respondents with primary and secondary school education. They were much more likely – as many as 36% of them – to choose the response don’t know/difficult to say.

 

A slightly greater divergence of opinions can be noticed by age. The older the respondents, the more favourably they look upon Krystyna Pawłowicz and Stanisław Piotrowicz in the Constitutional Tribunal. But even despite this upward trend, in the oldest group of people aged 60 plus, the acceptance for this state of affairs was just 33%.

 

Why are the youngest most critical? The answer is quite simple – they do not vote for PiS. In this age group, PiS had a terrible result in the recent Ipsos poll, gaining just 2% of support.

 

It is also significant that the youngest voters willingly support anti-establishment politicians, who promise to use as little politics as possible, stirring up disputes and demagogy in their actions. In other words, they make the assurance that they are not politicians. Therefore, in the eyes of this part of the electorate, the appointment of professional and active politicians to independent institutions is even worse than simply being a professional politician serving a third term of office in the Sejm.

 

The most decisive in their assessment are male and female voters of the Left Party. 100% of answers were ‘no’, including 96% ‘definitely no’. The Civic Coalition’s electorate is just as negative – 98% indicated that it was wrong, with only 2% rating it as appropriate.

 

Poland 2050 voters showed an acceptance rate of 7%, whereby they were only responses of ‘rather yes’. As many as 90% of the democratic opposition, which has a clear opinion about the matter of judge-politicians, does not agree with such a policy of filling posts in the Constitutional Tribunal.

 

But what about the PiS voters? The result of the support for such staffing of the Constitutional Tribunal at a level of 57% certainly does not indicate extensive acceptance of such a move among these voters.

 

Both Pawłowicz and Piotrowicz were controversial figures even by this formation’s standards. Pawłowicz was repeatedly pacified by her own political base, which, for example, required her to withhold her activity on Twitter. Piotrowicz was eliminated from national politics by the PiS voters themselves. The ex-prosecutor did not get voted into the Sejm in 2019. Both are certainly the party’s faithful soldiers and this may have been the prevailing argument for their positioning in the Constitutional Tribunal, where some PiS-appointed judges manage to rebel from time to time.

 

*A telephone survey conducted by Ipsos using CATI on 26-28 April 2021 on a nationwide representative sample of 1000 adult Poles. The sample population was stratified and proportional. The place of residence of the respondents was controlled by voivodship and the category of the size of the town.

 

This text is based on an article published at OKO.press, May 25, 2021. Translated by Roman Wojtasz



Author


Journalist at OKO.press. Graduated in law and philosophy from University of Warsaw.


More

Published

June 14, 2021

Tags

Supreme CourtDisciplinary ChamberConstitutional Tribunaldisciplinary proceedingsPolandrule of lawjudicial independenceZbigniew ZiobroCourt of Justice of the EUEuropean CommissionjudgesNational Council of the JudiciaryEuropean UnionCourt of JusticeAndrzej DudaIgor TuleyaMałgorzata Manowskadisciplinary systemCJEUMinister of JusticeCommissioner for Human RightsEuropean Court of Human RightsMateusz MorawieckiJarosław Kaczyńskipresidential electionsjudiciaryAdam Bodnarpreliminary rulingsdemocracymuzzle lawHungaryelections 2020Beata MorawiecFirst President of the Supreme CourtprosecutorsK 3/21Kamil ZaradkiewiczWaldemar Żurekdisciplinary commissionerEuropean Arrest WarrantProsecutor GeneralConstitutionCOVID-19Julia PrzyłębskaPresidentfreedom of expressionCourt of Justice of the European Unioncriminal lawMarek SafjanOSCEPaweł JuszczyszynNational Public ProsecutorPiotr SchabPrzemysław Radzikcriminal proceedingsPrime MinisterStanisław BiernatExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs Chambermedia freedomSupreme Administrative Courtconditionality mechanismconditionalityEU budgetCriminal ChamberLaw and JusticeprosecutionNCJNational ProsecutorelectionsWojciech HermelińskiStanisław PiotrowiczAndrzej ZollMałgorzata Gersdorfacting first president of the Supreme CourtAleksander StepkowskiOrdo IurisMay 10 2020 electionsmedia independenceAmsterdam District CourtKrzysztof ParchimowiczMaciej NawackiEAWmediaimmunityAnna DalkowskaCouncil of Europe2017freedom of assemblyFreedom HouseLech GarlickiEwa ŁętowskaArticle 7Venice CommissionWłodzimierz WróbelPM Mateusz MorawieckiAndrzej StępkaP 7/20Ministry of JusticeC-791/19disciplinary liability for judgesNational Electoral CommissionPiotr PszczółkowskiJarosław WyrembakGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court JudgesPresident of PolandPresident of the Republic of PolandJarosław GowinLGBTLGBT ideology free zonesSejmXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandBroda and Bojara v PolandReczkowicz and Others v. PolandMichał LasotaZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramdefamationcourtsTHEMISEU law primacyTVPLex Super OmniaAdam TomczyńskiBelgiumNetherlandsBogdan Święczkowskijudcial independencedemocratic backslidingViktor OrbanOLAFdecommunizationNext Generation EUvetopoliceJózef IwulskiLaw on the NCJJustice Defence Committee – KOSrecommendationTeresa Dębowska-RomanowskaKazimierz DziałochaMirosław GranatAdam JamrózStefan JaworskiBiruta Lewaszkiewicz-PetrykowskaWojciech ŁączkowskiHuman Rights CommissionerMarek MazurkiewiczCCBEAndrzej MączyńskiThe Council of Bars and Law Societies of EuropeJanusz NiemcewiczMałgorzata Pyziak- SzafnickaStanisław Rymarpublic opinion pollFerdynand RymarzAndrzej RzeplińskiSupreme Court PresidentJerzy StępieńPiotr TulejaSławomira Wronkowska-JaśkiewiczMirosław WyrzykowskireportBohdan ZdziennickiMarek ZubikDidier ReyndersEuropean ParliamentZiobroMichał LaskowskiMarek PietruszyńskiPiotr Gąciarekhuman rightscorruptionEuropean Association of Judges11 January March in WarsawPaweł FilipekMaciej TaborowskiJustice FundAdam SynakiewiczBelarusstate of emergencyneo-judgescoronavirusPiSXero Flor v. PolandEU treatiesAgnieszka Niklas-BibikSłupsk Regional CourtAstradsson v IcelandMaciej Rutkiewiczresolution of 23 January 2020K 6/21Mirosław WróblewskiLeon KieresPKWinfringment actionEU valuesENCJlex NGOcivil societyRussiaIsraelforeign agents lawOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeFirst President of the Suprme CourtLGBT free zonesequalityChamber of Extraordinary Verificationhate crimeshate speechcriminal codeGrzęda v PolandŻurek v PolandSobczyńska and Others v PolandRafał Trzaskowskimedia lawIustitiaKrystian MarkiewiczPrzemysła RadzikSenateMarcin WarchołElżbieta KarskaMarcin RomanowskiJacek CzaputowiczPrzemysław Czarneklegislative practiceENAZbigniew BoniekOmbudsmanKraśnikNorwayNorwegian fundsNorwegian Ministry of Foreign AffairsMichał WawrykiewiczFree CourtsC-487/19Article 6 ECHRArticle 10 ECHRRegional Court in AmsterdamOpenbaar MinisterieUrsula von der LeyenEwa WrzosekAK judgmentSimpson judgmentForum Współpracy Sędziówpublic broadcastermutual trustLMIrelandIrena MajcherAmsterdamthe Regional Court in WarsawUnited NationsLeszek MazurMaciej Miterapopulisminterim measuresautocratizationMultiannual Financial Frameworkabortion rulingequal treatmentabortionprotestsfundamental rightsthe NetherlandsDenmarkSwedenFinlandMariusz KrasońCT PresidentGermanyCelmerC354/20 PPUC412/20 PPUAusl 301 AR 104/19Karlsruheact on misdemeanoursCivil Service ActParliamentary Assembly of the Council of EuropeEUWhite Paperlustrationtransitional justice2018Nations in TransitCouncil of the EUmedia taxStanisław Zabłockiadvertising taxmediabezwyboruJacek KurskiKESMAIndex.huTelex.huJelenJózsef SzájerKlubrádióSLAPPLIBE CommitteeStrategic Lawsuits Against Public ParticipationFrans TimmermansGazeta WyborczaOKO.pressUS Department of StatePollitykaBrussels IRome IISwieczkowskiArticle 2Forum shoppingadvocate generalDariusz ZawistowskitransparencyEuropean Economic and Social Committeepress releaseSebastian KaletaRights and Values ProgrammeC-156/21C-157/21C-619/18Marek Piertuszyńskidefamatory statementsWorld Justice Project awardNational Prosecutor’s Officeintimidation of dissentersWojciech SadurskiBogdan ŚwiączkowskiDisicplinary ChamberjudgeTribunal of StatetransferPechOlsztyn courtKochenovPrzemysła CzarnekEvgeni TanchevEducation MinisterFreedom in the WorldKrystyna PawłowiczECJIpsosFrackowiakOlimpia Barańska-Małuszeretirement ageMariusz MuszyńskiAmnesty InternationalHudocŁukasz PiebiakRegional Court in KrakówPiebiak gateKonrad SzymańskiPiotr Bogdanowicztrans-Atlantic valuesPiotr BurasLSOauthoritarian equilibriumlawyersArticle 258Act of 20 December 2019clientelismoligarchic systemRecovery FundEuropean Public Prosecutor's Officerepressive actPolish National FoundationLux VeritatisKoen LenaertsMałgorzata BednarekPiotr WawrzykharrassmentMarian BanaśAlina CzubieniakSupreme Audit OfficeTVNjournalistslexTVNGerard BirgfellerEwa MaciejewskaPolish mediapostal voteKrakówRzeszówDagmara Pawełczyk-Woickaborderpostal vote billprimacy