Pojam ministarske krivice u ustavnom razvitku Srbije 1869-1918. godine

Abstract

У раду се приказује изградња појма министарске кривице у српском уставном праву од увођења института парламентарне оптужбе ми- нистара у склопу уставне реформе из 1869. године. Анализирају се ус- тавни прописи о кривичној одговорности министара и одредбе зако- на о министарској одговорности, њихова тумачења у скупштинским расправама седамдесетих година XIX века и у дебати у уставотворном одбору 1888. године, критика у литератури и конструкција министар- ских кривица у нацртима устава. Указује се на порекло одговарајућих решења у упоредном праву и, посебно, разматрају се питање примене начела поротног суђења и проблем разграничења јурисдикција државног суда и редовног правосуђа.

The institution of parliamentary accusation, conceived as the highest guarantee of constitutionality, had been introduced within the framework of the constitutional reform in 1869. The system of the enumeration of ministerial guilts had been taken from Prussian Constitution, but with expressed aspiration for general conception of delict and full respect of their essentially political nature. Legal system of ministerial responsibility had been established by scrupulous preservation of the principle of legality and with judicious delimitation of judicial aspect of dual elements – political and legal-criminal – in the mixed nature of ministerial guilt. As a particular forum of political judiciary the state court, adjudicating according to the jury principles, could only pass sentence on penalty of grade deprivation and disability for governmental service. The guarantee of ordinary court jurisdiction was prescribed for crimes punishable according to criminal law. Taking almost literary the Belgian Constitution solutions, Milan Piroćanac Government’s draft of the Constitution from 1883, by discretionary powers of the chambers concerning the accusation, and the judicial non-binded by normative determination of crimes which invoke ministerial responsibility, and prescribed penalities, was also on the track of the view widely accepted in French theory and adopted by Senate case law as the court for dispensing justice in case of ministers. The Radical Party draft of the constitution of 1883, parallely with the widest determination of unlawfulness, openly introduces the appreciation of ministerial acts’ purposefulness. The relinquishment of principal delimitation of jurisdictions of the state court and ordinary judiciary within the system of criminal ministerial responsibility in the constitutional reform of 1888, was relieved by high quality of the court composition and limitation of implementing the principle of jury-adjudication. The concept of ministerial guilt had also been essentially changed. Characteristic delicts which had been separated as possible misuse of ministerial powers had got clear criminal-legal feature and were subjected to penalties appropriate to responsibility for crimes. By excepting the acts of discretionary powers and deducing the sphere of responsibility to unlawfulness the Serbian legislator paves the way for the tendency which later on will become predominant in European constitutional solutions.