Pierluigi Battista is a journalist with very long experience. Among many other things, he is the deputy director of Corriere della Sera. He is currently part of the Yes voting committee in the career separation referendum – organized by the Einaudi foundation – together with lawyers Giandomenico Caiazza, Giuseppe Benedetto and many others.
Why does this commitment support YES?
“I am an Italian citizen. I am not a technician. I have always aspired to realize the idea that Marco Pannella put forward in the 1980s: fair justice. This idea implies that whoever judges you is actually a third party, that is, an impartial referee. In a trial, the prosecution and the defense face each other. The judge should not go out on the field wearing the same shirt as the prosecutor.”
Is a guarantee of impartiality necessary?
“Impartiality demands the impartiality of judges. Otherwise there would be none. This is a basic principle in a rule of law. And I want to live in a state of law. Like Germany, Great Britain, the United States and all democratic countries: judicial systems are different, but they all guarantee the impartiality and impartiality of judges.”
They say this is a reform that has not attracted much attention from the public.
“That’s not true, it concerns them directly. A citizen under investigation – and there are tens of thousands every year – should be able to walk into a courtroom knowing that he will be tried by a judge who is not a colleague of the one who charged him.”
Is this your old fight?
“This is an idea that I have supported since it was launched by the radical group of Marco Pannella almost half a century ago. In the past, people of great value like Giuliano Vassalli fought for this idea. He was a great socialist, an anti-fascist fighter, he was the organizer of very brave actions that made possible the release from fascist prison of Giuseppe Saragat and Sandro Pertini, two socialists like him, future presidents of the Republic. Then he was captured by the Nazis and dragged to Via Tasso, in a torture cell. You don’t can hear anyone who thinks Vassalli was a fascist.
No proponents worry that the reforms will lead to judges’ dependence on politics.
“The independence of judges from politics does not exist today. Currently there is a situation of absolute dependence of judges on politics.”
From executive power?
“No, from the judiciary. Freeing prosecutors and judges from the judiciary, and thereby making them independent, as provided by the Constitution, is one of the goals of this reform. The judicial sect is completely political, and they divide power within the prosecutor’s office and in the courts according to political criteria. They force judges to reconcile with political parties. Make political parties a selection criterion.”
Do you mean the flow of judges in ANM?
“Yes, in theory the ANM is a union. It is very disruptive in politics. Now even the judges’ union has become a direct political entity and is placing itself at the head of the political coalition for the No vote in the referendum, and forcing the left-wing parties to discipline themselves. So this is no longer the interference of judges in politics, this is the replacement of politics – part of politics – with the judiciary. Do you know where the headquarters of the NO committee are?”
Where?
“In Rome. In the Palazzaccio. That is, on the bench of the Supreme Court. A scandal”.
Aren’t judges supposed to be involved in politics?
“If a judge wants to be respected, he has to deserve it. So he can’t say what he wants, politicize it, and then expect everyone to submit to his authority.”
But in your opinion, is there no reason to support NO to these reforms?
“The NOT campaign is based on fraudulent assumptions. Glene illustrates one example. On the one hand, supporters of NOT say: After all, we are talking about a marginal thing, separation actually already exists. This separation concerns only a few cases. Constitutional reform is of course not worth it. Very good, I think. But then how can this statement be reconciled with concerns about the return of fascism, the removal of the PM, the spread of authoritarianism? If reform is only a minimal factor, it is not: this is not coup.”
No proponents say the PM is at risk of no longer being independent. And ended up under government power.
“Yes. And then they also argue that with this separation the Prosecutor risks becoming too autonomous from the rest of the judiciary and therefore concentrating enormous and excessive power within himself. Can you explain to me how these two statements can be reconciled? Dependent on the executive or too autonomous and powerful?”.
Will the YES committee only come from the right wing?
This fight must be free from alternatives for or against the government. A fight involving everyone, even many Democrats. If it becomes a referendum for or against Meloni, that’s wrong.
Have there been any left-wing supporters of segregation in the past?
“Agostino Viviani, the iron socialist, Elly Schlein’s maternal grandfather, fought like a lion in the 80s for secession. Massimo D’Alema chaired the bicameral commission that in the late 90s worked for secession. Giovanni Falcone supported career separation. Even Debora Serracchiani, the Democratic Party’s chief justice, supported it less than ten years ago.
Left-wing groups claim that this referendum opens a state of democratic emergency.
“This reform is simply the application of article 111 of the Constitution which requires a third judge. The Constitution says exactly like this: third.”
What will left-wing parties do in the election campaign?
“Left-wing parties will do what left-wing judges say.”
