SDP-DP Secret Alliance

ON Tuesday, the 11th of July 2006, the editorial offices of the newspapers and TV stations received a public statement from the Constitutional Court. The statement read that, during the meeting on the 11th of July 2006, the respective institution declared as unconstitutional the terms of the Article no. 12, Paragraph 1 of Law no. 3 in 2001 regarding the organization and deployment of the Referendum. Therefore, the Constitutional Court gave Traian Basescu the weapon for which he had been fighting in the last half of year: the possibility of starting a referendum based on each problem he could ever think about.
According to the news, the Constitutional Court had debated "the unconstitutionality exception brought into discussion by the People’s Attorney".
This part of the statement was a huge surprise:
a) the People’s Attorney has the right, according to article 13, paragraph 7 of Law 35 in 1997, to approach the Constitutional Court due to issues regarding the unconstitutionality of certain already valid laws and decrees.

The law of the referendum exists since February the 24th 2000. The present People’s Attorney, SDP (the Social Democratic Party) member Ioan Muraru, is here since 2001. For five years, he could have approach the Constitutional Court due to the Law of the referendum. He didn’t do it. Could he not have noticed for five years that Romania had a valid law that violates the Constitution?
b) the public opinion is not aware of any situation before 2006 in which the People’s Attorney approached the Constitutional Court due to the unconstitutionality of any valid law.
c) with his approach, SDP member Ioan Muraru has helped a SDP adversary, Traian Basescu, enormously.
For the really initiated people, this event on Tuesday, the 11th of July 2006, hasn’t been a surprise at all. They were expecting it. This is because they remembered that, on the 28th of June 2006, there existed a public statement of the Constitutional Court regarding the rejection of the Law of the Accounts’ Court for unconstitutionality, also as a consequence of an approach of the People’s Attorney.

If this law hadn’t been rejected as unconstitutional, on the 28th of June 2006 the Parliament plenum was to elect Ovidiu Ispir, representative member of the Tariceanu group, as President of the Accounts’ Court. Ioan Muraru’s approach came as salvation for Traian Basescu and DP (the Democratic Party). This is how the initiated people remembered that, during the first days of May 2006, the orange part of the press really rejected the trade through which DP gave SDP the right to name the People’s Attorney. Because of this trade, during the common meeting of the two Chambers, on the 10th of May 2006, after the proposition of SDP, Ioan Muraru has been confirmed in this function for five more years. After he was sure he would still be in this position for this period, Ioan Muraru remembered that the People’s Attorney could approach the Constitutional Court due to the unconstitutionality of certain laws.
Therefore, during a period of two months, he approached the Constitutional Court two times.
Both times, the approaches regarded laws that DP and Traian Basescu would have had problems with afterwards.
Question:
Could DP have named a People’s Attorney to make these approaches?
Of course not. Not just the liberals, but also the entire public opinion would have accused the People’s Attorney of listening to the directions of Traian Basescu. It is a different thing when Traian Basescu’s directions are followed by a People’s Attorney named by SDP.
The orange part of the press reacted for nothing. The People’s Attorney is in the hands of DP. Or, should we say, in the hands of the SDP-DP Alliance.