Parliament Speaker Kurtulmuş makes statement on Can Atalay decision

Participating in a live broadcast on HaberTürk, Kurtulmuş made statements regarding current issues. The highlights from Kurtulmuş's remarks are as follows:

"CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CUSTOM"

A procedure entirely in accordance with parliamentary custom has been carried out. Regarding the process concerning this decision on Can Atalay, we, as the Office of the Speaker, first held it back in the initial stage. We waited for a period both for the process to be completed and in the event that a new decision regarding a violation of rights might be issued, allowing for the possibility of the local court complying. Ultimately, in accordance with the mandatory provisions of the Constitution, there is a necessity for the final judicial ruling to be read in Parliament. 

The stripping of parliamentary membership is one process, and the loss of a deputy's status is another. The stripping of parliamentary status upon the arrival of a summary of proceedings. Here, the mere reading of a finalized court decision in Parliament, or more accurately, the informing of Parliament, is a necessary step. 

There are differences of opinion here. As the Speaker of Parliament, I paid attention to this: such a path was followed to ensure that the TBMM does not become a party to the dispute between the two judicial institutions. There have been cases in past periods where it was stripped directly by the decision of the court or the Court of Cassation in this manner. The process here has been operated in accordance with the customs of Parliament.

"THERE IS NO CONNECTION BETWEEN THE TBMM TRIP AND THE READING OF THE DECISION"

There are many overseas trips we take as the Office of the Speaker of Parliament. There is a process that is created spontaneously by saying, 'I am going on a trip tomorrow.' These trips are determined after meticulous work, prepared months in advance, with date ranges set. It is truly an extremely unfair and baseless accusation. The timing of the TBMM's visit to Bahrain was known months in advance. In any case, whoever our acting Deputy Speaker of Parliament is would have had it read. 

There is no connection between the reading of the decision in Parliament and the TBMM trip. Custom consists of unwritten rules. Formed over the years. 

One of these is which sessions the Speaker of Parliament will preside over. They preside over the opening of the TBMM and the budget negotiations on the first and last days. They preside over the April 23 sessions; they preside if there are special sessions. It is already not the case in custom for the Speaker to preside over the normal functioning of Parliament. But they can preside over every session if they wish. In every respect, a procedure in accordance with customs and rules has been carried out.

"CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT IS A VITAL NECESSITY"

How will the Constitutional Court decide? How will the process work? In what time frame will it bring the applications made to the agenda? We will see these. I have always said this; we unfortunately succeed in turning it into a political debate over the current parties of that day by focusing on singular events.

If one were to speak while setting aside Can Atalay's identity. A truly rare issue has emerged. Differences in jurisprudence and opinion have emerged between two judicial institutions.

There is a vital need for a constitutional amendment in Turkey. The 1982 Constitution is a constitution that occasionally makes the definitions between powers ambiguous and harbors some potential areas of debate within itself.

"PARLIAMENT MAKES THE NEW CONSTITUTION"

To discuss and talk about these. Even if this event had not happened, bringing it to the agenda is surely one of the fundamental duties of the TBMM, which has the power to remake the constitution. Setting aside certain partisan approaches. For people far from the political atmosphere of every party, which issues are important and the needs for constitutional reform are being discussed.

It is about discussing constitutional debate with the right methods, coming together with good intentions, without prejudices. I can say this with the impartiality drawn by the constitution. The right ground for this work is the TBMM. 

The view that it cannot make a new constitution, as some say, is unacceptable. If it reaches 400, it makes the amendment directly; with 360, it goes to a referendum. There is no constitution of any party; there is the constitution of the nation. I believe it is necessary for us to take steps on certain issues that have become chronic in Turkey. 

Here, the Court of Cassation also creates the process by using its powers in the relevant constitution while using its own powers. For example, it is the clarification and making explicit of the issue of behaviors against the state in Article 14 of the Constitution. The Constitution attributes this to laws. In this sense, especially while Turkey is fighting against separatist organizations, as a country surrounded by terror networks, and as a state that became a direct target on July 15, the TBMM naturally protects itself.

"THE PLACE WHERE THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE WILL BE DISCUSSED IS THE ENTIRETY OF TURKEY"

What the crimes and behaviors committed against the state are—firing weapons, establishing an organization, aiding and abetting an organization—these need to be clarified. It needs to be handled within a new understanding that protects the rights and laws of the elected, in particular.

If approached sincerely, I think the areas of debate on this subject will be eliminated. Parliament is currently closed. If we were to call our fellow deputies one by one on a day it is in session. We know that a very large portion says, 'Yes, we need a new constitution.' Someone says we need a new internal regulation.

In a setting that truly lasts for long hours and prepares the ground for fighting and noise. All of these have been discussed. It is not possible to bring very systematic changes to the agenda in this sense until the evening of March 31. The place where the constitutional issue will be discussed is the entirety of Turkey.

It is to take their opinions by establishing mechanisms suitable for everyone, our legal community, our civil society. Perhaps continuing these works through a commission is the right method. Everyone can have a constitutional proposal; but no one can have a constitutional imposition.

"DEMOCRACY IS SOMETHING LIKE THIS"

First, everyone needs to come to the table without prejudice. Then a method will be found. My first impressions are that I hold the view that political parties under the roof of the TBMM will look favorably on this issue after the election. We have a serious body of work. Hundreds of meetings have been held. There is a constitutional proposal on which parties have agreed on 64 articles. Today, perhaps 94 articles could be agreed upon.

If you say we cannot agree, we cannot open the door to consensus. In the end, there is an arithmetic. There is a 360-400 arithmetic. Our heart desires that it comes out with 600. This is very difficult, of course. In this sense, when one starts looking for a ground for consensus, they will also see the unacceptable proposals of the parties. Democracy is already something like this.

No one's 100 percent statement does not emerge as a rule. If a well-intentioned effort is put forth here, a common point can be reached. Even reaching 360 requires a consensus in today's parliament. Since no party has received 360 alone, even this requires a consensus.

"NO RULE PUT FORTH MAY CONTINUE UNTIL THE END"

The issue of individual application to the Constitutional Court is something that has been accepted in recent years. Turkey has had its hands freed in the international arena in terms of democratic opening in a very serious way. I may know the number wrong, there are 165 thousand individual application files. Instead of the Constitutional Court being a step related to resolving fundamental issues and human rights violations, it has come to a process where, let's say, the disputes of two land neighbors are also handled as rights violations. There is an extraordinary burden. To solve this, the Constitutional Court needs to hire hundreds of judges. 

No rule put forth may continue until the end. The beauty of democracy is here. If a judicial burden appears before us in practice today, evaluating this is a matter of politics. The place that will solve this is politics. It is discussed; limiting rights violations or gaining a new perspective is a matter of debate. Why do people apply there for rights violations? They say, 'I could not get my rights in court,' and they apply to the Constitutional Court.

There is the fact that expectations regarding appeals have not been met. This needs to be handled with an integrated judicial system. Saying let's bring a new framework to the issue of individual judgment is not to be categorically on this side. This issue is, in a sense, an area that politics will solve. Since judges cannot sit down and make laws. Politics should also work on these with an integrated perspective.