Założenia odpowiedzialności konstytucyjnej w RP

Abstract

In order to limit the freedom of those in power to act only within the frames provided by law, the term “power” in modern state should be connected also with its control and responsibility. Such attitude has not been discovered within last decades. For years at least three types of the authorities’ responsibility have been observed, that is, constitutional responsibility, political responsibility and criminal responsibility. Constitutional responsibility should be understood as general responsibility of the head of state, members of government or other high officials for the functional violation of the constitution or laws, even if the action was involuntary. Poland has had long and, as it turns, firm traditions in the matter. Responsibil-ty of royal officials was known in the I Republic. Due to the solid basis from the pre–partitions era, after gaining independence, founders of the March Constitution did not hesitate to introduce the institution of constitutional responsibility in the fundamental law. After World War II, the Constitution of 1952, just like constitutions in other socialistic countries, did not provide for constitutional responsibility. The change came in 1982 when Poland called into being an institution of the Tribunal of State which slightly reminded the pre–war solutions. The law on the Tribunal of State of 1982 is still in force, even if with multiple amendments, its idea remain the same. The following authorities are responsible before the Tribunal: the President of the Republic, the Prime Minister and members of the Council of Ministers, the President of the National Bank of Poland, the President of the Supreme Chamber of Control, members of the National Council of Radio Broadcasting and Television, persons to whom the Prime Minister has granted powers of management over a ministry, and the Commander–in–Chief of the Armed Forces. Those persons are responsible for the commitment of constitutional tort, crime and members of the parliament for the anticorruption rule’s violation. The constitutional responsibility nowadays reflects the need for extension of the responsibility of persons holding the highest positions in the state. It also re flects the requirement of higher standards in ethics, morality and competence or simply due diligence of actions. As a result, there are no doubts hen it comes to the existence of the constitutional responsibility or procedures of its execution. It is however important to debate on the effectiveness of the Tribunal of State’s functioning. It seems that the present shape of the constitutional responsibility in Poland is not sufficient. Faulty procedure, lack of judicial impartiality and involvement of politics are to blame for such situation. It seems very dif ficult to fix it with another amendment which brings up question about possibility to introduce a new model of constitutional responsibility