301

About the The Constitution of the Republic of Latvia: History and Modern Days

IIndemocratic,lawfulcountriesConstitutionisoneofthemostsignificantsymbolsofstatehood.AlongwithitslegalfunctionstheConstitutionalsoholds a symbolic meaning – it serves as evidence to the dreams of thefoundersofstatehoodandquestforthefuturegenerations.Itwasnocoinci-dencethatoneofthemostsignificantexpertsoftheConstitutionalLawofLatvia of the past centuryKārlisDišlerswrote that “democratic lawfulcountry cannot be imagined without the constitutional law that determines thelegalfoundationsofitspoliticalsystem.”1

Taking into consideration the historically complicated destiny of the statehood of Latvia, the date of adoption of our state constitution – theConstitution of the Republic of Latvia (hereinafter – the Constitution)mightseemsurprisingtomany.TheConstitutionwasreallyadoptedon15February 1922, announced on 30 June 1922 and came into force on 7November1922.2 After the restoration of independence Latvia deliberately decidedtorenewalsotheactofitsonlyconstitution.Thefoundationoftheconstitutionalsystemofthiscountrystillremainsthesame–theConstitution.

IIThe Constitution will always be related to the statehood of Latvia,

tellingabouttheeffortsofthepatriotsandofficialsofLatviarepresentingvariouscenturies,andgivingevidencetotheirsuccess,aswellasmistakes.

Thereby it can even be emphasized that a separate word has been introduced to the Latvian language to denote the constitution or the basic law,whichischaracteristicoftheLatvianlanguageonly.In1869,socialworker of the Neo-Latvian movement Kronvaldu Atis suggested to useneologism satversmefordenotingconstitution.Heformedthiswordfromthe verb tvert (tohold),because“peoplehavethereforeadoptedthelaws,sothattheyhadsomethingtoholdontowhen

K.LatvijasRepublikasSatversmesattīstība(DevelopmentoftheConstitutionof theRepublicofLatvia).Book:Latvijadesmitgados(LatviawithinTenYears).Latvijas valstsnodibināšanasunviņaspirmo10gadudarbībasvēsture(TheFoundingof theCountryofLatviaandtheHistoryofitsFirst10yearsofExistence).ĀronsM.(ed.) Riga:AnniversaryCommitteeedition,1928,p.73.2 LatvijasRepublikasSatversme(ConstitutionoftheRepublicofLatvia).ValdībasVēstnesis, No.141,30June1922.3 KarulisK.LatvianDictionaryofEtymology.VolumeII.Riga:Avots,1992,p.159.

302 303

Constitution came into force,when one of its authors already suggestedsignificantchangestotheconstitutionalsystem.

DuringtheRevolutionof15May1934,theactoftheConstitutionwasterminated; Kārlis Ulmanis founded the authoritarian regime and alsopromisedareformoftheConstitution.InsteadoftheConstitutionreformthedemocraticrepublicwasreplacedbyanauthoritariancountry.Butinthesummerof1940theU.S.S.R.occupiedLatvia,unlawfullyterminatingthe defactostatehood of Latvia.

Oftenenoughafterrevolutionsandconstitutionsuspension they losetheir political meaning and legal character and take the honourable place intheshelvesofthehistoricalandculturalheritage.ButthecasewiththeConstitutionwasquitetheopposite.Duringtheauthoritarianregimeandwhatisevenmoresignificant–inconditionsoftheSovietoccupation,theConstitutionbecameasymbolofanindependentanddemocraticstate.

ProtestingagainsttheunlawfulcharacteroftheU.S.S.R.’sactions,theenvoyofLatviainLondonKārlisZariņšon23July1940inthememorandumsubmitted to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Great Britain provided inter alia that joining of Latvia to theU.S.S.R. has taken place in breach ofArticle1oftheConstitution,“ThenationofLatviahasheavilyandbravelyfoughtforitsindependence,alsoagainstthearmyoftheSovietRussia.Thespirit of theFight forFreedom is still alive, and any unbiased observerwould admit impossible the fact that Latvians by their free will would like tosacrificetheir independence,whichthey fought forsohardandwhichtheycherishedsohigh.”8

Also the national resistance movement to the soviet and fascist regime wasorganisedonthebasisoftheConstitution.TheLatvianCentralCounciland the political forces it represented based their actions on the regulations oftheConstitution.AlreadylatertheexiledsenatorsoftheLatvianhighestcourtinstitution–theLatvianSenate–byaspecialresolutionacknowledgedtheConstitutionasbeinginforceandasanapplicableconstitution,hence,

TheplansoftheNeo-Latvianmovementincludedneithertheawarenessfor the necessity of an independent state of Latvia, nor concrete actionplans forachieving suchgoal.But themeaningand thenecessityof thenameoftheconstitutionwasalreadyclear.

Later the ideas about the statehood of Latvia and its constitution intertwinedintoacommondestiny.AtthebeginningofthelastcenturyamemberoftheNewStreammovementMiķelisValterssawtheopportunitiesofsavingthenationofLatviainitsindependencefromRussia.4 And another memberoftheNewStream–thepoetJānisPliekšāns(Rainis)admittedthat“themeaningofConstitution–itisthemainsource,fromwhichalltheartandclevernessoftheconstitutioneruptsasifonitsown.”5

After the Fight for Freedom on 17 and 18April 1920, the nation ofLatviaelecteditsrepresentatives–theConstitutionalAssemblyofLatvia–forthefirsttime.ThetaskoftheConstitutionalAssemblywastodevelopand adopt the constitution of the new state. As the President of theConstitutionalAssemblyJānisČakstehasemphasized,“TheConstitutionalAssemblywaselectedwithoutanylimitations,itspowersincludetheentirelifeofthecountryofLatvia,itisresponsibleforthetaskofestablishingandfoundingourcountryforeverandever.WecannotconfusetheConstitutionalAssemblywiththeparliament,becausetheConstitutionsetslimitsforit.TheConstitutionalAssembly has no limits at all. It can execute all thetasksthatitfindsnecessaryorimportanttothecountry.”6

The adoption and coming into force of the Constitution meant new challenges for the statehood of Latvia. During the interwar period inEurope the initial constitutional romanticism was quickly replaced byparliamentarism crisis and the search for new ways of governing the country. Also in Latvia the cause for all troubles was found in theConstitution.ThisperiodintheconstitutionallawofLatviaismostvividlycharacterizedinthetitleoftheintroductoryarticlebyArvedsBergs–“Betviņaneiet!”(ButsheRemains!)7Not even two months had passed since the

4 ŠildeĀ.MiķelisValterskātiesībnieksunvalstsvīrs(MiķelisValtersasalawyerand statepolitician).Book:ŠildeĀ.Trimdiniekaraksti(ExileStories).1944–1990.Munster: PublishingHouseLatvija,1991,pp.270-271.5 RainisJ.Kasirsatversme(WhatisConstitution).Book:RainisJ.Kopotieraksti (CollectedWorks).VolumeXVIIIRiga:Zinātne,1983,p.380.6 ČaksteJ.AddressattheOfficialSessionoftheConstitutionalAssemblyon1May1921. Book:ČaksteJ.Taisnībauzvarēsvienmēr.(TheTruthwillAlwaysWin)Atziņas.Runas. Dokumenti.Raksti.Vēstules.(Cognitions.Documents,Articles,Letters.)Thesecond, supplementedandimprovededition.Riga:PublishingHouseJumava,2009,pp.60–61.7 BergsA.Betviņaneiet!(ButsheRemains)Latvis,23December1922.

8 NoteofK.Zarins,LatvianEnvoyinLondon,ProtestingagainsttheIncorporationof LatviaintoU.S.S.R.asbeingUnconstitutionalandIllegal.Book:Latvian–Russian Relations.Documents.Secondprinting.Lincoln:AugstumsPrintingService,Inc.,1978, pp.209–210.

304 305

involveinthedevelopmentoftheConstitution,quitemanymemberswereelectedtotheConstitutionalCommittee–26intotal.ByacclamationtheChairman of the Committee was elected Marģers Skujenieks, who hadobtained general recognition for his articles about the national issue of Latvia.Alreadyatthebeginningofworkitwasapparentthatsuchlargenumberofmemberswouldnotproviderationalwork,andthereforeitwasdivided into two Sub-Committees with separate duties. The first Sub-Committeehadtodeveloptheprojectofthestatepoliticalsystem,buttheother – Declaration of Civil Liberties and Rights that would compose aseparate part of the Constitution. Both Sub-Committees and the JointConstitutionalCommitteeworkedalotandthoroughly.Allprojectswerediscussed in three readings inSub-Committeesandafterwards in threereadingsintheJointCommittee.Duringthefirstreadinggeneraldebatestookplaceandduringtheothertwo–discussionsbyparagraphs.”11

According to the intention of the Constitutional Committee the Constitutionshouldhaveconsistedoftwoparts,hence,theConstitutionalCommittee prepared a project about organisation of the state authority and DeclarationofCivilRightsandDuties.

Project of the state political system was prepared by the 1st Sub-CommitteeoftheConstitutionalCommitteeundertheguidanceofFēlikssCielēns. The principal theses of the project were prepared by MarģersSkujenieks and Fēlikss Cielēns, who represented the Latvian SocialDemocraticWorkers’Party.FēlikssCielēnsremembered,“TheConstitutionofLatviaisacollectiveproduct,themainworkinwhichhasbeenexecutedbyM.Skujenieksandme,butF.Menders,A.BergsandtosomeextentalsoA.Petrevics,J.PurgalsandA.SīmanishavetakenactivepartindefiningthechaptersoftheConstitution.SocialdemocratsarethemainauthorsoftheConstitutionofLatvia.Butitholdsnothingreallysocialistic.InsteaditholdstheprinciplesoftheWesterncivildemocracy.”12

The 2nd Sub-Committee of the Constitution lead by its ChairmanAndrejsKuršinskisprepared theDeclarationofCivilRightsandDuties.

“the necessary basic element of any modern state, but especially –democratic republic – is its legal structure, which is determined by itsconstitutional, respectively, basic laws and which characterize it in theinternational field as a corresponding law subject. These constitutionallawsadoptedbythefreelyelectedConstitutionalAssembly,onthebasisofwhich Latvia throughout all its years of independence has existed as asovereign and equal in rights state in the international life, are theDeclarationof27May1920aboutthecountryofLatviaandtheConstitutionoftheRepublicofLatviaof15February1922.”9

These ideas were evenmore simplified in a newspaper published inexile,“DuringtheexistenceoftheConstitutionithasneitherbeenannulled,norreformed.Ourmostsignificantstatesmenandpoliticianshavealwaysemphasized that the only thing we have left and around which everyone shouldunite,isourflagandourConstitutionof1922.[..]TheConstitutionofthedemocraticRepublicofLatviaisstillinforce,itshouldbecherishedas the most sacred treasure and only the nation itself shall have the right toamendtheConstitutioninaliberate,freeLatvia.”10

Thusitisunderstandable,whyaftertherestorationoftheindependencealsotheactofConstitutionwasrestored.Ifthedeclarationof4May1990“OntheRestorationof the Independenceof theRepublicofLatvia”stillprovideddevelopmentofanewconstitution,thentheConstitutionalLawof21August1991“OntheNationalContentoftheRepublicofLatvia”clearlydefinesthatthenationalcontentoftheRepublicofLatviaisstipulatedbytheConstitution.

IIIThe Constitutional Assembly of Latvia established a separate

commission – Constitutional Committee – for the development of theConstitution project. FēlikssCielēns, one of the leading deputies of theConstitutional Committee describes in his memories the conditions of forming it, “Toprovide the opportunity for all parties anddirections to

9 Resolution of the Latvian Senate on the validity of the Constitution of Latvia and the powersoftheSaeimaundertheconditionsoftheoccupation.LatvjuZiņas,17April1948.10See:VonogsalītsA.Latvijassatversmes25goduatcerei(ForRemembranceofthe25th AnniversaryoftheConstitutionofLatvia).Latgola,1947,No.40,pp.1–3.

11CielēnsF.Laikmetumaiņā(ChangingCenturies).Atmiņasunatziņas(Memoriesand Cognitions).Book3.Stockholm:PublishingHouseMemento,1998,p.107.12CielēnsF.Laikmetumaiņā(ChangingCenturies).Atmiņasunatziņas(Memoriesand Cognitions).Book3.Stockholm:PublishingHouseMemento,1998,p.111.

306 307

asthelocalizationoftheWeimarConstitutionwouldbetoosimplified.TheConstitutional Committee processed voluminous information about the constitutional regulations of the countries of that time and was able to createauniquedocument.

InhismemoriesFēlikssCielēnsindicatesthat“theprinciplesofWesternparliamentarydemocraciesofEnglandandFrancewerelaidonthebasisofthepoliticalsystemofourcountry.”17 But the modern studies emphasize thattheConstitutionisbasedonsynthesisbetweentheWeimarConstitutionandWestminstermodel(theConstitutionalismoftheUnitedKingdom).18 The Constitution holds all those concepts of the constitutionalism that were topicalinEuropeofthattimeandthatwerereflectedinotherconstitutionsadopted after World War I (in the constitutions of Germany, England,Finland,Greece,EstoniaandLithuania).19

AssessingtheworkoftheConstitutionalAssemblyofLatvia,itshouldbe pointed out that due to various reasons the Constitutional Assembly of Latvia rejected theproject of the secondpart of theConstitution“BasicRegulationsonCivilRightsandDuties”.Althoughinitiallyitwasplannedthat the Constitution will include a catalogue of the basic rights, theConstitutional Assembly of Latvia considered that the constitutional regulations of organising state authority are sufficient and that theconsolidation of the basic rights within the Constitution is not an obligatory dutyoftheconstitutionallegislator.20

IVProbablywhenreviewingthetextoftheConstitutiononewillatfirst

noticethelaconismoftheConstitution,eventhelackoftextualvolume.Itshould be emphasized that the laconism of the Constitution has been deliberately chosen and is an approved decision of the Constitutional AssemblyofLatvia.MarģersSkujenieks, Chairman of the Constitutional Assembly has especially emphasized that “each abstract definition andeach extended meaningless formula may arise admonitions, it may be

ThisSub-CommitteeusedtheConstitutionofGermanyof11August1919(hereinaftertheWeimarConstitution)asthebasisforthesecondpartofthe Constitution. Professor Kārlis Dišlers clearly denoted the WeimarConstitution as the source of inspiration for the second part of the Constitution.13 AlsoFēlikssCielēns in respect to the second part of theConstitutionclearlydenotedthatthisproject“isbasedonthecorrespondingpartsofthenewWeimarConstitution.”14

In the juridical literature opinion is held that in general the Constitution isbasedontheregulationsoftheWeimarConstitution.Ofcourse,atthetimeofdevelopingtheConstitution,WeimarConstitutionwasconsideredthe most modern in Europe and “the last word of the constitutionallegislation”.Itsregulationswerecarefullystudiedandanalysed,butitwasonlyoneofthesamples,whichtheConstitutionalCommitteegotacquaintedwith.15

Analysing the transcripts of the Constitutional Assembly, ProfessorValdisBlūzmaconcludedthatthedeputiesoftheConstitutionalAssemblyof Latvia had referred to a wide range of countries to substantiate their opinions.MostattentionwasdevotedtotheU.S.(30times),England(29times),Switzerland(25times),Germany(25times)andFrance(22times).Deputies also often referred toEstonia (12 times), the tsarist Russia (9times), Czechoslovakia (6 times), Poland (3 times), Finland (3 times),Austria(2times),Hungary(2times),Sweden(2times)andJapan(2times).SomereferenceshavebeendocumentedinthetranscriptsaboutArgentina,Belgium,Denmark,Yugoslavia,Holland,Italy,Lithuania,Mexico,Norway,Persia, Peru, Spain and Turkey. The deputies also referred to theconstitutional regulations of the states of Germany and Switzerland of that time.16

Ofcourse,thesecountriesmentionedatthedebatesoftheConstitutionalAssembly of Latvia do not automatically prove that the constitutional regulationshavebeentakenintoconsiderationandhavebeenreflectedinthetextoftheConstitution.ButitprovesthattheaspectontheConstitution

13DišlersK.Demokrātiskasvalstsiekārtaspamati(BasisofDemocraticState).Riga: A.Gulbis,1931,p.179.14CielēnsF.Laikmetumaiņā(ChangingCenturies).Atmiņasunatziņas(Memoriesand Cognitions).Book3.Stockholm:PublishingHouseMemento,1998,p.107.15ŠildeĀ.Latvijasvēsture(HistoryofLatvia).1914-1940.Stockholm:PublishingHouse Daugava,1976,p.363.16BlūzmaV.TheimpactoftheWesternconstitutionalrightsonthedevelopmentofthe ConstitutionoftheRepublicofLatvia(1920-1922).Book:Latvijasvalstiskumam– 90.Latvijasvalstsneatkarība:(The90thAnniversaryoftheStatehoodofLatvia. IndependenceofLatvia:IdeaandImplementation).Riga:PublishingHouseofthe LatvianInstituteofHistory,pp.136-137.

17CielēnsF.Laikmetumaiņā(ChangingCenturies).Atmiņasunatziņas(Memoriesand Cognitions).Book3.Stockholm:PublishingHouseMemento,1998,p.113.18TaubeC.ConstitutionalisminEstonia,LatviaandLithuania.Astudyincomparative constitutionallaw.Upsala:JustusFörlag,2001,p.112.19ŽilysJ.LatvijosRespublikosKonstitucija(Satversme)(TheConstitutionoftheRepublic ofLatvia).Book:Konstitucinioreguliavimoávairovė.Vilnius:MykoloRomerio Universitetas,2006,p.212.20ŠildeĀ.Latvijasvēsture(HistoryofLatvia).1914-1940.Stockholm:PublishingHouse Daugava,1976,pp.361-363.

308 309

TheConstitutionhasbeenamendedforseveraltimes,whileithasbeenin force, so that its regulations would reflect also the challenges of theconstitutional rights of the last century – the protection of the nationalidentityandthebasiclaw,membershipintheEuropeanUnion,aswellasthedevelopmentofaseparateconstitutionalcourt.ButduringtheseninetyyearstheConstitutionhasnotbecomestrangeorunknowntoitsauthors.

Many fundamental issues of organising state authority that provide the interrelations between the Saeima,the State President and the Cabinet of Ministers function the same way as it was once intended by the Constitutional AssemblyofLatvia.BysupplementingtheConstitutionwiththecatalogueofbasicrights,tothepossibleextenttheSaeima took into consideration also the solutions and formulations chosen by the Constitutional Committee inthesecondpartprojectoftheConstitution“BasicRegulationsofCivilRights and Duties”. Even by their abstractness of expression and for-mulation,regulationsoftheConstitutionstillholdthehistoricalstyleandcharmoftheConstitution.

Dr.iur. Jānis Pleps

considereddeficient,andobjectionsmayberaisedagainstseparatephrases.Toavoidsuchmiscomprehensionsandtoavoidclaims,theConstitutionalCommittee agreed on the fact that the Constitutional law will declare definiteideasinseparatechaptersinaverydefinitemanner.”21

Taking into consideration the laconism of the Constitution, in theconstitutional practice it is the spirit and not the letter of the Constitution that holds significant meaning in reflecting the ideas and values ofconstitutionalism. It is the laconic means of expression that allows thetranslation of its regulations in respect to the spectre and requirements of the century, focusing on the juridical cognitions of modern democraticsystemofrights.22 The theory of the constitutional rights of Latvia admits that“thereisnoreasontobelievethattheconceptofdemocracyincludedin Article 1 of the Constitution should be translated independently from the understanding,whichthemajorityofotherdemocraticstateshaveaboutit.Quite the contrary – it should be interpreted according to the content,whichhasbeenascertainedbytheexperienceofdemocraticstates.”23

Therefore similarly to the majority of countries, where “old consti-tutions” are in force, for correct and appropriate adaptation of theConstitution theknowledgeof its contentalone is insufficient. Also thepractice of applying the Constitution, the constitutional traditions andespecially the interpretation of the Constitution regulations provided by theConstitutionalCourtshouldbetakenintoconsideration.Beingawareof the complicated translation of the Constitution, the ConstitutionalCourt hasespeciallyemphasizedthat“byitsessencetheConstitutionisashort,laconic,butcomplicateddocument.”24

21TranscriptoftheConstitutionalAssemblyofLatviaSessionIVof20February1921. Book: Latvijas Satversmes sapulces stenogrammas (Transcripts of the Constitutional AssemblyofLatvia).1921.IssueNo.14.Riga:PublicationoftheConstitutional Assembly,1921,pp.1308-1309.22 LevitsE.Principleofproportionalityinthepublicrights–juscommuneeuropaeum and the rankprincipleincludedintheConstitution.LikumsunTiesības,2000,No.9(13),p.266.23TheseparateopinionsofConstitutionalCourtjudgesAivarsEndziņš,JurisJelāginsand AnitaUšackainCaseNo.2000-03-01“OntheconformityofSection5,Paragraphsfive andsixoftheSaeimaElectionLawandSection9,ParagraphsfiveandsixoftheCivil ParishCouncilElectionLawtoArticles89and101oftheConstitutionoftheRepublicof Latvia,toArticle14oftheEuropeanConventionofCivilRightsandBasicLiberties ProtectionandtoArticle25oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights.” Book: Latvijas Republikas Satversmes tiesas spriedumi (Verdicts of the Republic of LatviaConstitutionalCourt).1999–2000.Riga:CourthouseAgency,2002,pp.113–118, Points1and5.

24AbouttheconformityoftheCabinetofMinistersRegulationNo.17of11January2005 “AmendmentstotheLawOntheCompulsoryAlienationofRealEstateforStateor PublicNeeds”andtheLawof9June2005“AmendmentstotheLawOnCompulsory AlienationofRealEstateforStateofPublicNeeds”toArticles1and105ofthe ConstitutionoftheRepublicofLatvia:VerdictoftheConstitutionalCourtof16 December2005inCaseNo.2005-12-0103.LatvijasVēstnesis,20December2005, No.203,Point17.