(ANSA) - Italian President Carlo Azeglio Ciampi on Tuesday signed a controversial reform of the Italian judicial system into law after sending a previous version back to parliament. The centre-left opposition, which has stiffly opposed Premier Silvio Berlusconi's reform, had feeble hopes Ciampi would again refuse - a move that was theoretically possible even though no president has ever done so.
In Italy, in any case, a refusal to sign is not a veto. When it happens, it is grounded on the argument that certain aspects of the law are against the Italian constitution - but the parliamentary majority can nonetheless choose to ignore those strictures. In the event, Berlusconi's centre-right lawmakers toned down some aspects of the reform - to the extent that criminal lawyers accused them of making it toothless and falling short of its declared objective, a watertight distinction between judges and prosecutors similar to that in most western democracies.
For this reason, they will strike against the reform in September.
The reform leaves entry into the judiciary as it is, with prosecutors and judges joining as one bloc. But after five years they will now be forced to choose which career they want to pursue - and be subject to competitive examinations. They will also have to take aptitude tests and be open to tougher disciplinary action as well as seeing their cases assigned by their chief prosecutor instead of, as now, opening them at their own discretion.
The judiciary will be barred from joining political parties or movements and from talking about trials. Critics say that, like many Italian bodies, the judiciary is highly politicised. Judges and prosecutors have staged four strikes against the reform. Prosecutors in particular claim the measures reduce their constitutionally sanctioned independence and lay them open to intimidation by the justice ministry, which will monitor their activities more closely.
The government claims the reform fosters meritocracy but prosecutors and judges say it will encourage careerism at the expense of a public-minded ethos. On the transfer of discretionary powers to chief prosecutors, lawmakers say it will avoid frivolous and sometimes politically motivated actions while cutting workloads and speeding trials. Prosecutors claim it batters a pillar of the Constitution, the obligation to prosecute.
