The government also introduced a part-time supplement in 2018, and the Verkhovna Rada canceled it after seeing the consequences. However, the Government reintroduced the measure in July through the Tax Increase Decree, showing that it is stronger than Parliament.

The Chamber of Fiscal Consultants made a broader appeal to the People’s Advocate, one of the reasons being: what is the constitutional order?

It is now in Parliament, in the Chamber of Deputies, OG 16/2022 (on tax increases), and if it accepts the part-time supplement that the government has re-introduced, it means that it is only an add-on to the executive.

Dan Manolescu, president of the Chamber of Fiscal Advisors, elaborated on what I said above during the conference.

“As for constitutionality, the argument that seems relevant to me and was given in our speech before the People’s Advocate concerns the constitutional system from the point of view of the role of institutions in the state. In this particular case of part-time contracts, we have a history where the government initially in December 2017 (with no effect from 2018) issued a regulation that introduced this additional payment. He made his decision based on the constitutional powers that Parliament gives the government to legislate through GEO,” Manolescu said.

Practically, he says, it was decided that later the parliament, by a special bill (it was a legislative initiative of the PNL), directly repealed this provision, which was voted for by the vast majority of the entire parliament: it was repealed.

I left you the first time, you did something I thought was stupid, I undo it. and you, Government, will you come again?

“Parliament decided that the Government’s decision on this matter is wrong and passed the law (on canceling the supplement for part-time work). Later (not in July 2022) the Government came again, violating the will of the Parliament, and did the same. Is this method of regulation constitutional? After all, what is the role of the government and parliament in the decision-making hierarchy in Romania?” Manolescu asks.

If the parliament says: this is bad, I let you go the first time, you did something, I thought it was stupid, I cancel it, and you, the Government, come and do it again, who is higher?

• “We understand the need for money, but at the same time we have to understand that it’s also about principles, that if we give up all these rules and principles, what are we at the end of the day?”

“We hope that these arguments will be put forward at least at the level of the Constitutional Court by the People’s Advocate as the only institution that can still do this. We will see, perhaps, this discussion at the level of the parliament,” the president of the Chamber of Fiscal Consultants also noted.

According to him, parliamentarians should define their role.

“It’s about getting the idea, if they eventually decide they want to stay that way, that they’ve effectively become an appendage to the Government. This is reality. In the end, we have to decide who, according to the constitutional order, occupies a higher position,” Manolescu also confirmed.