It was “violence or threat to a political, administrative or judicial body”, as stated in the crime for which the former senator Carlo Giovanardi in Modena is on trial, or it was free exercise of parliamentary prerogatives, criticism and also verification of the activity of articulations of the State, and therefore not subject to judgment by the judiciary? The Senate Board for Immunities after a year of discussions was split: Pd, LeU and M5S were to leave Giovanardi on trial; all the others do not, that is, the center-right and Italy is alive. They voted. The center-right, extended to the Renzians, prevailed.
And now the word goes to the Senate. But at this point the final grade is taken for granted. That process should die there. And the effects will be seen as early as next week during the hearing for the “White List” trial.
Felice, the former centrist senator from the acknowledgment “that my parliamentary activity regarding anti-mafia prohibitions has always fallen within the scope of article 68 of the Constitution, according to which” the members of Parliament cannot be called to answer for the opinions expressed and in the votes cast in the exercise of their functions “. The parliamentary body, whose decision must now be ratified by the Chamber, thus recognized that the work I carried out on the matter with questions and interpellations, interventions in the Chamber, in the Justice Commission and in the Anti-Mafia Commission falls within the scope of legitimate, and I add dutifully, the activity of a representative of the people who criticized wrong decisions of the Prefecture of Modena that led to the loss of hundreds of jobs and the bankruptcy of companies in the area, whose total extraneousness to mafia collusion was subsequently demonstrated “.
Beyond the concrete case, namely the brusque remonstrances of the former senator against a prefect as well as investigators who were X-raying a certain company in the Modena area, which had been denied anti-mafia certification, the Giovanardi case sets a legal principle: the acts and words of a parliamentarian always fall under the umbrella of Article 68 when they have to do with a political opinion. This is how the rapporteur sees it, the Northern League senator Simone Pillon and now the majority of the Council for Immunities. Anna Rossomando thinks the opposite, to say, who expressed the position of the Democratic Party: “The most problematic aspect of the motivation provided by Senator Pillon – he says – is that it ends up extending the prerogative to any conduct put in place by the parliamentarian “Extra moenia”, even if not attributable to the case of the opinion expressed, as long as it pursues an end in some way related to a previous “intra moenia” activity. This approach is completely erroneous and a harbinger of arbitrarily and unjustifiably extending the scope of unquestionability, which instead exists and is recognized by Article 68 of the Constitution exclusively for the opinions expressed and for the votes given, and therefore not for any conduct whatsoever. existing by the parliamentarian “.