Annulment of the Integrity Chamber Ordinance by the Constitutional Court (see related story) will not be well-received in The Hague. Only recently there were complaints in the Dutch Second Chamber that it was
all taking too long. But the Government of St. Maarten alone is not to blame. Of course, its amendments introduced during the debates on the topic in Parliament without hearing the Advisory Council played a major role, because they were considered substantial and entailed fundamental changes.
However, the ruling mentions a host of other issues, including “many essential flaws, serious ambiguities” and “unclear elements.” Most of these probably originated in the Netherlands, where the pressure to enact such legislation came from in the first place.
It’s also good to remember that the Ombudsman as a High Council of State is completely independent in its task as guardian of the Constitution and that the only Constitutional Court in the entire kingdom is part of the judiciary that is totally separated from the executive and legislative branches in a modern-day democracy. In fact, it is precisely these kinds of checks and balances that characterise a country governed by the rule of law.
The rights to privacy and to a fair trial are obviously very important and must be protected against potential abuse by the state. The verdict is to be respected on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean and its suggestions will have to be acted on should any new, similar proposal be made in the future.
