KORTE KONSTITUSHONAL

SERIE di 24 artíkulo tokante e Struktura Estatal Nobo

Título di e buki: IN SYNERGIA UNANIMUS

KAPÍTULO 5: KORTE KONSTITUSHONAL

Sub-título: Supremasía di Hustisia

‘Ora Hulanda ta kuminsá hunga ahedres ku nos, nos ta kuminsá hunga dam ku nan. Anto e ora ei nos semper ta gana’.

 

Gran humor di e outor Antiano mas influyente Sr. Boeli van Leeuwen. E humor ta presis en el blanco, pasobra ora un Hulandes ta papia Hulandes, e ta nifiká algu otro ku ora un Antiano ta bisa mesun kos. Imposibel? Nò. E ta sosodé tur ora. 

 

Kada unu ta papia for di un kuadro mental y konseptual kompletamente distinto. Riba nivel personal, e tradishonal kompleho di superioridat- vs. inferioridat ketu bai ta hunga su ròl. Un Antiano lo no kontradesí un Hulandes fásilmente. Y ora e ta hasi’é, normalmente e ta rabiá. 

 

Riba nivel inter-gubernamental, Hulanda semper ta papia ku e islanan for di un posishon di prepotensia real, finansiero y sikológiko. Ademas, e Statüt mes ta kontené vários ‘loophole’ ku den práktika ta transferí hopi di e poder di e islanan bèk na Hulanda. 

 

Resultado ta ku e partner Antiano tin ku hasi uso de métodonan ménos òrtodòks pa logra su meta. Ta p’esei nos ta hunga dam. 

 

Un ehèmpel: Art. 12a di Statüt ta habri e kaminda pa instituí un Korte Konstitushonal pa husga kasonan entre Reino Hulandes (lesa: Hulanda) y e islanan di Aruba, Kòrsou y San Martin. E artíkulo mes (introdusí na 2010) no ta deskribí ki tipo di kasonan. Ta parse lógiko, sin embargo, ku e artíkulo aki ta referí na kaso- y disputanan tokante e nifikashon y e aplikashon di Statüt y/of Leinan di Reino (‘Rijkswetten’).

  

Netamente e pregunta ei (ki tipo di kasonan?) lo mester wòrdu spesifiká den e futuro ‘Lei di Reino tokante disputanan den Reino’. Gobièrnu di Hulanda a presentá un konsepto di Lei di Reino over di esaki na 2016. Aruba, Kòrsou y San Martin tambe a presentá un konsepto. 

 

Loke a pasa despues, no ta kla. Pero na 2019 Aruba a manda un Informe Parlamentario na e partnernan den Reino, den kua nan ta argumentá na un manera fini y konvisente ku e konsepto di Hulanda ta bullshit

 

Awor, nos por bisa k’e ta ‘bullshit’. Nos funshon ta pa papia palabra kla y korto. Pero Parlamento Rubiano no mag ekspresá su mes asina. Y nan no a hasi’é tampoko. Nan a argumentá nan punto di bista mashá bon y 100% diplomátiko. Y e ta asina konvisente ku no por refut’é.    

 

Sin embargo, na final di e teksto Parlamento Rubiano no por a kontrolá su rabia mas. Nan no a bisa: ‘Esaki ta bullshit!’. Nan a bisa: ‘E Ministro ta abusando e prinsipio tras di art. 12a di Statüt’. 

 

E konklushon ta korekto. E konsepto di Hulanda en bèrdat ta nònsèns. Pero nan mester a bisa: ‘E Ministro a malkomprondé e prinsipio tras di art. 12a di Statüt’. No ta’tin nodi pa dal nan un skòp èkstra. Aruba su argumentashon mes tabata sufisiente pa knock nan out

 

E skòp tabata un ekspreshon di rabia y frustrashon, ku semper t’ei presente bou di superfisie den relashonnan den Reino. Sí, e Hulandesnan ta yam’é afó. Pero nos tin ku siña keda kalmu. Duna bon ehèmpel.

 

Un dicho Rusiano ta bisa: ‘Esun ku ta rabia, no tin rason’. Si nos por kapta esei profundamente, e ora ei nos a haña e manera efektivo pa hunga dam ku nan. Anto e ora ei, nos semper lo gana. Pasobra loke nos ta pidi ta hustu.

 

Na tur pais federal tin un Korte Konstitushonal independiente y impar-sial. Ta p’esei nos Reino tambe mester haña unu. Pero no Korte Supremo di Hulanda, pasó e no por ta imparsial. Huesnan Hulandes simplemente no por ignorá e interesnan di Hulanda. Nan lo tuma parti pa Hulanda. 

 

Ta p’esei nos ta proponé pa pidi Komishon Europeo pa regla ku un Kámara Speshal di Korte di Hustisia di Union Europeo (KHUE) wòrdu enkargá pa husga kasonan konstitushonal entre e partnernan den Reino. Inkluso Boneiru, asina ku nos a logra haña e status di Isla. 

 

Esaki ta e mishon di KHUE: ‘E KHUE ta interpretá Lei di Union Europeo (UE) pa perkurá ku tur paisnan di UE ta aplik’é na mesun manera. E ta husga kasonan entre gobièrnunan nashonal y institushonnan di UE’. Mesun mishon por wòrdu usá pa nos: ‘E KHUE ta interpretá Lei di Reino pa perkurá ku tur partnernan den Reino ta aplik’é na mesun manera. E ta husga kasonan entre gobièrnunan den Reino y institushonnan di Reino’.

 

Pues awor nos por redaktá insiso 5 di art. 132b di Grondwet:

  • Korte di Hustisia di Union Europeo ta husga tur kasonan entre Gobièrnunan y/of Institushonnan den Reino y e Estado Federal Isleño di Boneiru a base di prinsipionan federal. 

 

Boneiru, 16 di òktober 2022

  Na nòmber di Fundashon ‘Golden Meand Society’, 

Michiel Bijkerk, presidente


 

SERIES of 24 articles about our New Constitutional Structure 

Book title: IN SYNERGIA UNANIMUS

Chapter 5: THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT
Sub-title: The Rule of Justice

 

 ‘When Holland starts playing chess with us, we start playing checkers. And then we always win’.

 

Superb humor by the Antilles’ most influential writer Boeli van Leeuwen. The humor is right on the nose, because when a Dutchman speaks Dutch, it means something else than when an Antillean says the same thing. Impossible? No. It happens all the time.  

 

Each speaks from a completely different mental and conceptual frame-work. On a personal level, the traditional superiority- vs. inferiority-complex still interferes. An Antillean will not easily contradict a Dutch-man. And when he does, he usually does so in anger. 

 

On an inter-governmental level, Holland always speaks to the islands from a position of factual, financial and psychological preponderance. Moreover, the Kingdom Charter itself contains various loopholes which practically transfer many of the islands’ powers back to Holland. 

 

The result is that the Antillean side must rely on unorthodox methods to get its way. That’s why we play checkers. 

 

An example. Art. 12a Kingdom Charter paves the way for the institution of a Constitutional Court to pass judgment on disputes between the Kingdom (read: Holland) and the islands of Aruba, Curaçao and St. Martin. The article (inserted in 2010) does not mention what kinds of disputes. It stands to reason that the article refers to disputes about the meaning and application of the Kingdom Charter and Kingdom Laws. 

 

Precisely that question (what kinds of disputes?) is to be set out in the future ‘Kingdom Law concerning Kingdom disputes’. A draft Kingdom Law framed by the Dutch Government was presented in 2016. Aruba, Curaçao and St. Martin jointly presented their own draft also. 

 

What happened next, is not clear. But in 2019 Aruba sent a Parliamentary Report to the Kingdom partners, in which they finely and convincingly argue that Holland’s draft Kingdom Act stinks. 

 

Now, we are allowed to say it ‘stinks’. Our function is to speak clearly and briefly. But the Aruban Parliament cannot use such language. And rightly so. Nor did they do that. They made their argument superbly and 100% diplomatically correct. It is so convincing that it cannot be refuted.    

 

However, at the end the Aruban Parliament could no longer restrain its anger. They did not say: ‘It stinks’. They said: ‘The Minister is abusing the rationale of article 12a Kingdom Charter’. 

 

This conclusion is correct. Holland’s draft does stink. But they should have said: ‘The Minister has misunderstood the rationale of article 12a Kingdom Charter’. There was no need for an extra kick in the nuts. Aruba’s argumentation itself was sufficient to knock them out. 

 

The kick was an expression of anger and frustration, which always simmers underneath the surface in Kingdom-relations. Yes, the Dutch do feed this. But we have to learn to overcome by example, not by nut-kicks. 

 

A Russian proverb says: ‘He who gets angry, is wrong’. If we truly understand this, we will have found our way to effectively play checkers. And then we will get our way. Because what we are asking is just.

 

In all federally organized countries there is an independent and non-prejudicial Constitutional Court. That is why there should be one in our Kingdom also. But the Dutch Supreme Court cannot be independent. The interests of the Netherlands will always be so preponderant that Dutch judges simply cannot ignore them. They will side with Holland. 

 

That is why we propose to petition the European Commission to arrange that a special branch of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) may be tasked to adjudicate constitutional cases between the Kingdom partners. This would include Bonaire as soon as we will have obtained the status of Federal Island State. 

 

This is the CJEU’s mission: ‘The CJEU interprets EU law to make sure it is applied in the same way in all EU countries. It settles disputes between national governments and EU institutions’. The exact same mission state-ment could be used for us: ‘The CJEU interprets Kingdom law to make sure it is applied in the same way in all Kingdom states. It settles legal disputes between Kingdom governments and Kingdom institutions’.

 

So now we add section 5 to the new art. 132b of the Dutch Constitution:

  • The Court of Justice of the European Union settles all legal disputes between Kingdom Governments and/or Institutions and the Federal Island State of Bonaire on the basis of federal principles. 

 

Bonaire, 16 October 2022

   On behalf of Foundation ‘Golden Meand Society'(GMS)

Michiel Bijkerk, president

Share this page to Telegram

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: