“To maintain the distinction of political positions and the advantage of a single vote”
Two motions to ask for the resignation of the Undersecretary of Justice Andrea Delmastro, considered responsible for having disclosed “confidential documents” of the Dap to his party colleague Giovanni Donzelli (FdI) on the affair of the anarchist Alfredo Cospito, were presented on 2 February in the Chamber of deputies from the M5s and Pd-Avs groups. The leader of Action, Carlo Calenda, announced that he will vote in favor of the motion of the Democratic Party and the 5 Star Movement today announced the request for scheduling after the regional elections, noting that he was “the first to file the request” to start the Delmastro revocation procedures and “we are glad that others are following us too”.
In the presence of several motions, can a joint vote be reached? “In terms of the voting procedure, there is a practice that allows the joint vote of motions that have the same device even if they have different motivations. However, since these are acts that only have a meaning of political censorship, the joint vote does not hide the political fact that the motivations are not identical. And the fact that they are distinct motivations weakens their political effect, despite the fact that the vote is joint”. This is how the constitutional lawyer Giovanni Guzzetta, professor of public law at the University of Rome Tor Vergata, replies to Adnkronos.
“The motion – he explains – is an act by which a deliberation is requested in the Chamber, which has exclusively political effects except in cases in which it concerns ‘motions of no confidence’, as provided for by article 94 of the Constitution with a particular procedure In Delmastro’s case, it cannot be a matter of no-confidence pursuant to article 94 because Delmastro is not a minister, but an undersecretary appointed by the government”. The existence of distinct motions and the hypothesis of a single vote “would therefore represent for the proponents – concludes Guzzetta – a compromise solution between the need to maintain the distinction of political positions and the advantage of a single vote”. (by Roberta Lanzara)